On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 06:02:15PM +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote: > On 27/08/2014 17:23, Chris Wilson wrote: > >On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 05:17:11PM +0100, Siluvery, Arun wrote: > >>On 27/08/2014 16:59, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 05:50:16PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >>>>On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:50:28PM +0100, Arun Siluvery wrote: > >>>>>Some of the workarounds are lost followed by a gpu reset, suspend/resume; > >>>>>this patch adds a test which compares register state before and after > >>>>>the test scenario. > >>>>> > >>>>>This test currently verifies only bdw workarounds. > >>> > >>>The existing tool didn't need kernel help (other than forcewake). Why > >>>was that not used as a starting point? > >>>-Chris > >>> > >>Do you mean intel_reg_checker()? > >>This new test uses kernel help to get the initial state of > >>workarounds which are exported to debugfs. We could add this known > >>state to the test itself but Daniel is not ok with that. debugfs > >>part is only added to support the test. > > > >I disagree vehemently with Daniel here then. The kernel lies. > >-Chris > > > Just to clarify, he was not ok because the list we maintain in the > test can get out of sync with the workarounds we apply in the driver > which can be avoided if it is generated by the kernel itself. Test driven development would suggest that the test itself maintains its list. Something I heard Daniel say himself before ;-) > It may be ok to maintain the list in the test in this case > considering the list is fairly small but it is not my call. The best thing about independent testing is that it is independent... -Chris -- Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx