On Fri, Sep 08, 2017 at 09:10:54AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Daniel Vetter (2017-09-08 07:38:24) > > The function is perhaps a bit renamed, but if a previous tests failed > > so badly it left the gpu wrecked, then we should fail, not skip. > > > > Testcases shouldn't ever randomly skip at least, since that just > > indicates whether the feature is there or not. Pass/fail is for > > whether it's working or not. > > Not quite, now you are randomly failing a test even before it is testing > anything. Should we fail every test just because we can't open an fd? Well I guess the smart choice would be to fail on -EIO and skip on -ENODEV, but given that we have a lack of hw that returns -ENODEV I'm not sure we should bake that in. We do have gt without display, not (yet, maybe it'll happen) display without GT. gma500 would be such a thing, but that one got its own driver. I'll respin. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
