On 01/21/2016 12:08 AM, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 06:49:49PM +0000, Belgaumkar, Vinay wrote: >> Hi Chris, >> These tests were developed for testing buffered SVM(using userptr >> and soft pinning API). I think Dan wanted me to rename the tests to >> gem_softpin, since they were being checked in as tests which >> validated the softpin kernel patches. Can we rename the existing >> tests to gem_buffered_svm or something similar, and then push any >> targeted softpin only tests as gem_softpin? We were hoping to use >> these userptr+softpin tests as GFT tests for SVM(Android) as well, >> since buffered SVM is POR for BXT Android. > > I agree with Chris, there's no need to unecessarily mix together features. > When the api is designed in an orthogonal way, so should be the testing. > i915.ko is already a mindboggling complex beast, no need to make our lives > harder by making the tests use features that aren't strictly needed. > > In the end applications and UMDs will of course use all these features > together, but that's why we do integration testing on top of just running > igt. > > Can you please review Chris' patch? So what's the actual request here? Chris rewrote Vinay's test, but does it cover all the same stuff Vinay did? If not, it would be nice to include those, maybe in a separate file, since Vinay did work with lots of people to make sure the coverage was complete for the SVM use cases... I definitely like the sound of the new stuff Chris added though; no-reloc in particular is an important use case for upcoming APIs. Jesse _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
