From patchwork Fri Oct 19 08:50:49 2018 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Daniel Vetter X-Patchwork-Id: 10648851 Return-Path: Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.125]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21DFA13B0 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1294C287FF for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:51:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix, from userid 486) id 056BA28830; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:51:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on pdx-wl-mail.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=2.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.wl.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9D23287FF for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:51:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC87A6E166; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:50:59 +0000 (UTC) X-Original-To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Delivered-To: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Received: from mail-ed1-x541.google.com (mail-ed1-x541.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::541]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEDB86E16D for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 08:50:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ed1-x541.google.com with SMTP id y19-v6so30719520edd.2 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:50:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JBhmdw8xBdQI8K70jUqJSF04hXmM5q94ytAm587nT4o=; b=Zgx1RI0My9pkEYV574d8YFcbvGlBwQ7qHUDSt9TiAwZQTDWsxD4RM5qxnkHHcgpJbP VVY8pvxbIhPWZMr08OBTeXTNEGBMMOOCbJsg877b6YtqUzMevF96U0ri+n37N1SmDv/T fRe0Jo7seMK9choxR8MshxAscdKRUUhoO8mCfUNmo7lshEriaxl90v/YMEklbr5CI1Oz xdMvmBv7qs03vcT5OpyCe8a8RzQ2i0s+3enxDJYs1lQ8NHOZpEwdw9o71HYCC6nh0QPR FXudTYXSqZfu477qnz6gUXHV92MbFf9MKSN4Umds5AEkKt1CRwSJCOutiv2g8OTY8Par LAAA== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoh+T8MZKq88IMXy0DzNUCIfslLCzaN2O61hZYdpNg51mnpgIZJs emwyg1MGpcnH06eNWDQLOOtKQw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV61WzhVPnlo51kXBhE0NxFCqbxDEezUhifGIR0nM3DJ6wke1nzgbAVa+BSZ2dbpUDFQOEwwm0g== X-Received: by 2002:a50:91da:: with SMTP id h26-v6mr5801945eda.50.1539939057345; Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:50:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phenom.ffwll.local ([2a02:168:569e:0:3106:d637:d723:e855]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r23-v6sm10020362eda.44.2018.10.19.01.50.56 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Oct 2018 01:50:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Daniel Vetter To: DRI Development Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 10:50:49 +0200 Message-Id: <20181019085049.25482-1-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff mandatory? X-BeenThere: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Intel graphics driver community testing & development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: IGT development , Daniel Vetter , Intel Graphics Development , amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP Hi all, This is just to collect feedback on this idea, and see whether the overall dri-devel community stands on all this. I think the past few cross-vendor uapi extensions all came with igts attached, and personally I think there's lots of value in having them: A cross-vendor interface isn't useful if every driver implements it slightly differently. I think there's 2 questions here: - Do we want to make such testcases mandatory? - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing still? And of course there's a bunch of details to figure out. Like we probably want to also recommend the selftests/unit-tests in drivers/gpu/drm/selftest, since fairly often that's a much more effective approach to checking the details than from userspace. Feedback and thoughts very much appreciated. Cheers, Daniel Signed-off-by: Sean Paul Acked-by: Dave Airlie --- Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) diff --git a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst index 4b4bf2c5eac5..91cf6e4b6303 100644 --- a/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst +++ b/Documentation/gpu/drm-uapi.rst @@ -238,6 +238,13 @@ DRM specific patterns. Note that ENOTTY has the slightly unintuitive meaning of Testing and validation ====================== +Testing Requirements for userspace API +-------------------------------------- + +New cross-driver userspace interface extensions, like new IOCTL, new KMS +properties, new files in sysfs or anything else that constitutes an API change +need to have driver-agnostic testcases in IGT for that feature. + Validating changes with IGT ---------------------------