On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:06:44PM -0700, Jeff McGee wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 07:47:03PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 01:58:52PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Jeff McGee <jeff.mc...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 08:37:30AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 04:41:02PM -0700, jeff.mc...@intel.com wrote: > > > >> > From: Jeff McGee <jeff.mc...@intel.com> > > > >> > > > > >> > tests/core_getparams needs the new libdrm interfaces for > > > >> > querying subslice and EU counts. > > > >> > > > > >> > For: VIZ-4636 > > > >> > Signed-off-by: Jeff McGee <jeff.mc...@intel.com> > > > >> > --- > > > >> > configure.ac | 2 +- > > > >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> > > > > >> > diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac > > > >> > index 16d6a2e..88a1c3d 100644 > > > >> > --- a/configure.ac > > > >> > +++ b/configure.ac > > > >> > @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ if test "x$GCC" = "xyes"; then > > > >> > fi > > > >> > AC_SUBST(ASSEMBLER_WARN_CFLAGS) > > > >> > > > > >> > -PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.52 libdrm]) > > > >> > +PKG_CHECK_MODULES(DRM, [libdrm_intel >= 2.4.60 libdrm]) > > > >> > > > >> Please don't and instead copypaste the new structs/defines with a > > > >> local_ > > > >> prefix like we do it for all the other new igt testcases. Forcing > > > >> libdrm > > > >> to get updated for igt all the time can get annoying fast. > > > >> -Daniel > > > >> > > > > In this case I'm trying to exercise new API functions in libdrm which > > > > wrap the GETPARAM ioctl. Would you rather me bypass the wrapper to > > > > avoid requiring updated libdrm? I can do that, but it fails to test the > > > > complete path that client would use. > > > > > > > > > Am I missing something, or does 2.4.60 not exist yet? > > > > > > That said dependency bumps for igt seem like less of an issue than > > > dependency bumps for mesa.. I mean if you are using igt you are > > > probably on the latest anyways.. I'm not sure why Daniel is so > > > concerned about that.. > > > > > > (but dependency bumps to something that doesn't exist yet should > > > perhaps be avoided) > > > > I'd like to avoid massive depency loops for igt tests so that I can merge > > the testcase right when the patches land in -nightly. Otherwise there's > > always a small delay involved where regression can creep in. Also if I > > have to update libdrm every time I update igt that's annoying since > > without that I don't have to install/update anything at all - I run igt > > in-place. And we've used the LOCAL_ prefixes for pretty much every abi > > addition in igt tests thus far. > > -Daniel > > I understand that and it certainly makes sense when libdrm is only > providing defines or structs. But as I said, in this case there is > code in libdrm (the wrapper) that we could test as part of the > complete path. Are you recommending that I implement duplicate > wrapper functions in igt with the local prefix?
Sorry I totally didn't realize that. Generally we don't have a lot of igt testcase for libdrm really, imo it's usually simpler to just add the interface to each part. Since this is such a simple one there's no need to have a low-level test and the libdrm test on top, but that's what I'd do if there's something worth testing in libdrm. Because for complex functionality I really want to get the bare-metal tests in together with the kernel part. Stalling for libdrm release could take longer. And yes, personally I'd just have open-coded the getparam call here in igt, but that's just a bikeshed. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
