On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Are you saying > > you'll reject this approach entirely? > > I'm saying that I don't see terrible lot of value in adding a bunch of > code for a sticker, and that we should look into making it actually > useful by testing the paths that end-users end up using. And we have > to keep this working once it's merged. > > But if it doesn't make sense to make this sticker useful while still > being able to get it then I'll reconsider. Yeah I think it depends on the test. We're supposed to go through existing paths for testing e.g. link training with different params (though with a fixed fb and mode), so getting coverage there is something we want regardless. But getting something like probing covered as part of the compliance testing may be something else entirely... -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
