On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 at 14:42, Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> 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). Alex
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
