On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:32 AM Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:50 AM Zhou, David(ChunMing) > <david1.z...@amd.com> wrote: > > > > Make igt for cross-driver, I think you should rename it first, not an intel > > specific. NO company wants their employee working on other company stuff. > > You can rename it to DGT(drm graphics test), and published following > > libdrm, or directly merge to libdrm, then everyone can use it and develop > > it in same page, which is only my personal opinion. > > We renamed it ot IGT gpu tools, that was even enough for ARM folks. > If this is seriously what AMD expects before considering, I'm not sure > what to say. > > Alex, Christian, is this the official AMD stance that you can't touch > stuff because of the letter i?
We don't have any restrictions. Alex > -Daniel > > > > Regards, > > David > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: dri-devel <dri-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> On Behalf Of > > > Eric > > > Anholt > > > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 12:36 AM > > > To: Sean Paul <s...@poorly.run>; Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> > > > Cc: IGT development <igt-...@lists.freedesktop.org>; Intel Graphics > > > Development <intel-...@lists.freedesktop.org>; DRI Development <dri- > > > de...@lists.freedesktop.org>; amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > > > Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH] RFC: Make igts for cross-driver stuff > > > mandatory? > > > > > > Sean Paul <s...@poorly.run> writes: > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 10:50:49AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > >> 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? > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, more testing == better code. > > > > > > > > > > > >> - If yes, are we there yet, or is there something crucially missing > > > >> still? > > > > > > > > In my experience, no. Last week while trying to replicate an intel-gfx > > > > CI failure, I tried compiling igt for one of my (intel) chromebooks. > > > > It seems like cross-compilation (or, in my case, just specifying > > > > prefix/ld_library_path/sbin_path) is broken on igt. If we want to > > > > impose restrictions across the entire subsystem, we need to make sure > > > > that everyone can build and deploy igt easily. > > > > > > > > I managed to hack around everything and get it working, but I still > > > > haven't tried switching out the toolchain. Once we have some GitLab CI > > > > to validate cross-compilation, then we can consider making IGT > > > > mandatory. > > > > > > > > It's possible that I'm just a meson n00b and didn't use the right > > > > incantation, so maybe it already works, but then we need better > > > documentation. > > > > > > > > I've pasted my horrible hacks below, I also didn't have libunwind, so > > > > removed its usage. > > > > > > I've also had to cut out libunwind for cross-compiling on many occasions. > > > Worst library. > > > > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > amd-gfx mailing list > amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx _______________________________________________ amd-gfx mailing list amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/amd-gfx
