On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 09:53:44 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 8:14 AM Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 16:23:35 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 02:40:58PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > It's weird because it the kernel is misconfigured and no console is specified on the cmdline > > > > this console could become the main console... > > > > > > > > It's a great feature, but couldn't this be a module parameter ? > > > > > > If you have vkms enabled in a distro, you're doing it wrong. > > > > That's really not a great position to take. I would prefer that > > if a random contributor writes a Weston patch and runs 'meson test', it > > will use VKMS to run Weston's DRM-backend tests on his machine > > automatically, maybe save for some seat and device node access > > permissions bits which distributions could be delivering as well. > > > > Just put the VKMS device node into a non-default seat, and Xorg etc. > > will happily ignore it. > > > > For the fbdev device node, I don't know. Maybe a module parameter > > really is a good choice there, defaulting to off. I have no interest in > > testing anything against fbdev, but other people might disagree of > > course. > > > > Why? Gitlab CI is still not running tests for every commit, just per > > MR, and it might even be infeasible too. > > > > I am also hoping for a future where I don't have to build my own kernel > > just to be able to run Weston DRM tests with VKMS. That means I want to > > be able to run my machine with VKMS loaded and active at all times, > > without affecting the normal desktop. I already have such a setup with > > an extra AMD card, but you can't run most KMS tests against real > > hardware drivers. > > I just realized that building vkms is no problem, since it doesn't > auto-load. And if our Grand Plans with configurability come true, then > your test-harness will want to do that loading and setup itself > anyway. With that there also shouldn't be any problems with fbcon, > since presumably you already have that bound to the real gpu. > > So I think we're all fine here, for everyone. > > Now if you built-in vkms, that's a different thing. And for that I > really think a "don't do that" is the right choice. Very good. My remaining wish is that VKMS would be fully configurable and usable by an ordinary user, but I suppose that should be solved with a privileged userspace daemon somewhat similar to logind that hands out VKMS "sessions" somehow. Not sure configfs is the best choice for VKMS configuration, unless maybe unprivileged userspace could ask for a VKMS instance with its own configfs tree it can access without CAP_ADMIN... Thanks, pq
Attachment:
pgp9WUoHXEHVJ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
