On Wed, 2020-03-18 at 14:49 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Alexander Kanavin < > alex.kana...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm not sure about this. The intent was to use piglit as a way > > of > > > > > improving our graphics testing, particularly allowing it to > > > be > > > > > automated. > > > > > > > > > > Whilst we've had to focus on getting the basics right, I'm > > > not sure > > > > > that objective isn't still a worthy goal over time? > > > > > > > > Piglit is meant for testing and validating OpenGL drivers for > > > real > > > > hardware. While we can put it on top of software Mesa driver or > > > > virgl, I am not sure there is much value in that? Software > > > rendering > > > > might even be too slow to run in practice. > > > > > > OE-Core is meant to be usable for validating BSPs amongst other > > > things > > > though. Testing virgl does prove the graphics stack is working > > > too from > > > a software perspective so does have some value. > > > > Right, I can put Piglit on top of virgl and see how well that > > works. It would be good to enable virgl ‘out of the box’ at some > > point, I’ve been proposing that for a while :) > > > > I found an old ticket where piglit was proposed for the core image > testing, and the idea was rejected due to its huge install size, so I > won't be pursuing this further. > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10047 > > Would you still say it's worth to keep the recipe in core? Python- > numpy (that piglit and only piglit needs) isn't trivial to maintain > either (for instance, update to latest version needs cython to be > added to core).
That bug is for piglit as a default in testapps. We decided that was a bad idea, not that testing with piglit was a bad idea overall. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
