Hi all, This is just to collect feedback on this idea, and see whether the overall dri-devel community stands on all this. I think the past few cross-vendor uapi extensions all came with igts attached, and personally I think there's lots of value in having them: A cross-vendor interface isn't useful if every driver implements it slightly differently. I think there's 2 questions here: - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory? - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing still? And of course there's a bunch of details to figure out. Like we probably want to also recommend the selftests/unit-tests in drivers/gpu/drm/selftest, since fairly often that's a much more effective approach to checking the details than from userspace. Feedback and thoughts very much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel --- Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst index 4b4bf2c5eac5..91cf6e4b6303 100644 --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ DRM specific patterns. Note that ENOTTY has the slightly unintuitive meaning of Testing and validation ====================== +Testing Requirements for userspace API +-------------------------------------- + +New cross-driver userspace interface extensions, like new IOCTL, new KMS +properties, new files in sysfs or anything else that constitutes an API change +need to have driver-agnostic testcases in IGT for that feature. + Validating changes with IGT --------------------------- -- 2.19.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
