> > > This seems not needed? For pure generic kms tests I think it'd be great if > > > we don't have to sprinkle driver-specific checks all over. Which you seem > > > to achive in your series here. > > > > > > So not clear why this here is needed? > > > -Daniel > > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > Thanks for the review. You are right for kms tests having vmwgfx driver > type > > is not needed but I added vmwgfx device type because I plan to add more > > vmwgfx test cases, and since vmwgfx buffer allocation is private ioctl > > having a separate device type might be needed. > > Oh, this sounds awesome. And yes, for private ioctl tests vmwgfx is > obviuosly very much welcome! > > > I can drop this until I have some vmwgfx specific test cases. > > Sounds like a good plan to me. > -Daniel I saw latest email from Perti mentioning that this might be needed for loading ko. I am really not sure about that but I will test without vmwgfx as a separate driver type and see if things work. Thanks, Deepak _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
