On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:50 AM Zhou, David(ChunMing) <David1.Zhou@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Make igt for cross-driver, I think you should rename it first, not an intel specific. NO company wants their employee working on other company stuff. > You can rename it to DGT(drm graphics test), and published following libdrm, or directly merge to libdrm, then everyone can use it and develop it in same page, which is only my personal opinion. We renamed it ot IGT gpu tools, that was even enough for ARM folks. If this is seriously what AMD expects before considering, I'm not sure what to say. Alex, Christian, is this the official AMD stance that you can't touch stuff because of the letter i? -Daniel > Regards, > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dri-devel <dri-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Eric > > Anholt > > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:36 AM > > To: Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx>; Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> > > Cc: IGT development <igt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Intel Graphics > > Development <intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; DRI Development <dri- > > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; amd-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff > > mandatory? > > > > Sean Paul <sean@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > >> 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? > > >> > > > > > > Yes, more testing == better code. > > > > > > > > >> - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing > > >> still? > > > > > > In my experience, no. Last week while trying to replicate an intel-gfx > > > CI failure, I tried compiling igt for one of my (intel) chromebooks. > > > It seems like cross-compilation (or, in my case, just specifying > > > prefix/ld_library_path/sbin_path) is broken on igt. If we want to > > > impose restrictions across the entire subsystem, we need to make sure > > > that everyone can build and deploy igt easily. > > > > > > I managed to hack around everything and get it working, but I still > > > haven't tried switching out the toolchain. Once we have some GitLab CI > > > to validate cross-compilation, then we can consider making IGT mandatory. > > > > > > It's possible that I'm just a meson n00b and didn't use the right > > > incantation, so maybe it already works, but then we need better > > documentation. > > > > > > I've pasted my horrible hacks below, I also didn't have libunwind, so > > > removed its usage. > > > > I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many occasions. > > Worst library. -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
