On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Jeff McGee <jeff.mcgee@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Our Android system validation tests are expecting these interfaces. That's > not igt, I know, but is supporting downstream test suites a priority? I can > get our val guys on the list to +1 the need for these patches. Likewise I > can request a developer from my team to review these patches. Or are you > looking specifically for someone outside our downstream product to 2nd the > need-for and quality of the patches? I don't mind if something is only used in one product - if it's useful sooner or later other product teams will pick up on in. So upstreaming is the right thing. But if you add a debugfs for tests I also want to have the tests upstreamed for the following reasons: - If a product team deems it useful to test something, our upstream QA should probably do the same. - Without testcases actually using these on upstream there's a good chance that we'll break them. Which means forward-rolling to new forklifts will be more of a pain than strictly needed. We already have our issues with upstream collaboration, no need to make it more ugly. - For interfaces used in tests/scripts I also want to do a bit of api review, which is best done by looking at the actual users. Ofc debugfs doesn't have strict abi guarantees imposed by the linux community like ioctls/sysfs which we're essentially never allowed to break. But change the interfaces still has its costs. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
