On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 11:24:27AM +0530, Jindal, Sonika wrote:
>
>
> On 6/18/2014 5:09 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 12:32:00PM +0100, Damien Lespiau wrote:
> >>On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 02:27:27PM +0530, sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>From: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>Testcase for 180 degree HW rotation
> >>>
> >>>Cc: sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Sonika Jindal <sonika.jindal@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >>The test looks good to me (I haven't checked in details, the bar for igt
> >>is quite a bit lower). It shows two gaps in the igt kms API:
> >>
> >> - Retrieving the primary plane (there's a series from Matt fixing this
> >> and exposing the primary plane through igt_output_get_plane())
> >> - Adding a set_property() convenience function
> >> (ala igt_plane_set_property("rotation", BIT(DRM_ROTATE_180)))
> >> (no-one is working on that just yet, can de done later)
> >>
> >>A small question before pushing this, have you checked that the test
> >>correctly skips when running with a kernel without rotation support?
> >
> >Note: don't push userspace using new ABI until that ABI has been
> >agreed upon and committed to the kernel.
> >-Chris
> >
> Hi Chris,
> Are you referring to igt kms APIs? In this igt we are not using any
> API which is not merged.
API also includes property names. If you are happy that everything is
upstream, then it cannot change and is ready to be used. Otherwise we
just end up with broken tests.
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
