On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:03:40PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, "Wentland, Harry" <Harry.Wentland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Would it make sense to append something like ", if such a test can be > > reasonably made using IGT for the target HW." to make it clear to > > contributors that in cases like the one discussed this is at the > > reviewers discretion? > > I think the simplest change would be to say API changes SHOULD have > driver-agnostic testcases, with the RFC 2119 meaning of SHOULD: > > SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there > may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a > particular item, but the full implications must be understood and > carefully weighed before choosing a different course. > > I.e. s/need/should/. I think it also catches the spirit of the > discussion here; seems like everyone agrees having tests is a good goal. > > You'll have to allow for reviewer/maintainer/community discretion no > matter what. Judging by the discussion, CRC based tests don't currently > meet the driver-agnostic requirement. Playing devil's advocate, you > could argue any new APIs couldn't be tested with CRC either, even if it > were the most reasonable approach for i915. I think I'll combine both for v3, I wanted to do something like that anyway to address Eric Anholt's similar concern. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
