> On 22/02/2021 21:18, Tom Seewald wrote: > > > > Personally, I have an older GPU, RX 580 Polaris series, I will only > spend dev time on the AMD Navi GPU issues after AMD makes the RX 6800 XT > available in my region. I simply don't have that card and I'm not going > to waste money buying the original Navi card, RX 5700, when the new card > will arrive imminently. There is no indication from the bug report that it requires a Navi card to reproduce. The reporter stated that they are using a RX Vega 56 which is the previous gpu generation. Why do you believe this is specific to Navi devices? > Ultimately, even if it isn't hard to bisect, it doesn't feel fair that > AMD is validating their drivers work on x86 before a release but the > ppc64le users have to check things after a buggy release. Unfortunately smaller platforms will almost always get less testing than the more popular platforms, and I don't see that trend changing in the foreseeable future. This is where motivated community members need to come in. I doubt amdgpu developers even have easy access to ppc64le hardware. I will also say that regardless of ISA there are going to be times where bisection is needed. I have personally had to bisect and report an issue with amdgpu and I am using x86 hardware. There's also a decent chance I'm going to be bisecting another amdgpu bug this evening. I am not expecting you or others to do things that I am not willing to do myself. > I'm all in favor of collaboration with the AMD and kernel developers > > Ultimately, the only way to ensure equality across different > architectures is to have upstream developers using all of these > architectures throughout their development cycle. It would of course be great if amd fully tested their drivers on every architecture that Linux supports, but I don't think that's currently a realistic expectation for *any* device/driver vendor. If amdgpu support is something that is important to IBM, Talos, or other members of OpenPower, then I think reaching out to developers and offering free ppc64le hardware or VM access for kernel development and testing would be an excellent start. Providing automated ppc64le build and boot testing for the amd-staging-drm-next tree would be great as well. > How can we encourage greater use of ppc64le and aarch64 in those > communities? While it may sound trivial, I made a post here last week > about how we can help people choose the right workstation through the wiki: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o... > > I estimate spending one or two hours in my own comparison of the Raptor > motherboards and I hope the table allows other developers to save the > same amount of time. While there's no silver bullet, reaching out to the upstream developers (e.g. via their mailing list) and having a conversation with them can't hurt. Understanding their position and what they believe would help with testing is going to be an important part of the solution. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
