On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 09:16:08AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 01:00:26PM +0900, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On 17.03.2016 16:36, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 06:41:14AM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote: > > >> Just an aside, > > >> > > >> So is there no way to do hibernate with these blocks? > > >> > > >> Like can you not cleanly shut them down without doing a power cycle. > > >> > > >> I have to say UVD is a real pain in the ass from a stability pov, I'd > > >> kinda wished I'd enforced AMD creating something like intel-gpu-tools > > >> and having tests to make sure GPU reset etc stayed working before > > >> merging it. > > > > > > igt already supports running on any kind of drm device, and it has a bunch > > > of vc4 specific testcases on top. If anyone finds offence in the "intel" > > > part, we can rename it to igt gpu tools/tests ;-) > > > > Any tips for running the tests on non-Intel GPUs? I tried piglit igt.py, > > but it was generating tens of thousands of failures from tests which > > look Intel specific. > > Yeah Chris again broke the SKIP logic in gem_concurrent_blt/all testcases. > Just explicitly exclude those with -x gem_concurrent. The problem is that > hw/kernel feature checks aren't properlty encapsulated in the right > igt_fixture or igt_subtest blocks, so it falls over. Specifically the > access_mode->require() test is only protetected by > igt_only_list_subtests(), which is the wrong way to do it. > > Adding Chris.
Ok, fixed pushed now using the just added igt_subtest_group blocks. Please scream when anything else falls apart. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch
