On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 07:33:18PM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: >> Hi Maxime, >> >> On 9/1/22 09:55, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:42:10AM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: >> >> With the introduction of KUnit, IGT is no longer the only option to run >> >> the DRM unit tests, as the tests can be run through kunit-tool or on >> >> real hardware with CONFIG_KUNIT. >> >> >> >> Therefore, remove the "igt_" prefix from the tests and replace it with >> >> the "test_drm_" prefix, making the tests' names independent from the tool >> >> used. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20220830211603.191734-1-mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> - Change "drm_" prefix to "test_drm_", as "drm_" can be a bit confusing (Jani Nikula). >> > >> > I appreciate it's a bit of a bikeshed but I disagree with this. The >> > majority of the kunit tests already out there start with the framework >> > name, including *all* the examples in the kunit doc. Plus, it's fairly >> > obvious that it's a test, kunit is only about running tests in the first >> > place. >> >> Would it be better to keep it as "drm_"? >> >> Currently, I don't think it is appropriate to hold the "igt_" prefix, as >> the tests are not IGT exclusive, but I don't have a strong opinion on >> using the "drm_" or the "test_drm" prefixes. > > Yes, using drm as our prefix everywhere seems like a good idea :) Disagreed for reasons explained in other mails. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
