Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-31 Thread Todd Previte
Paulo Zanoni Tuesday, July 29, 2014 2:53 PM 2014-07-22 18:11 GMT-03:00 Jesse Barnes: On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: Are you saying you'll reject this approach entirely? I'm saying t

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-30 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 06:53:57PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > 2014-07-22 18:11 GMT-03:00 Jesse Barnes : > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes > >> wrote: > >> > Are you saying > >> > you'll reject this approach e

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-29 Thread Paulo Zanoni
2014-07-22 18:11 GMT-03:00 Jesse Barnes : > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes >> wrote: >> > Are you saying >> > you'll reject this approach entirely? >> >> I'm saying that I don't see terrible lot of value in adding a b

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 22:53:44 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes > wrote: > > Are you saying > > you'll reject this approach entirely? > > I'm saying that I don't see terrible lot of value in adding a bunch of > code for a sticker, and that we should loo

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 13:48:45 -0700 Jesse Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:41:11 +0200 > Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:10:35PM -0700, Todd Previte wrote: > > > >This patch set adds the foundational support for Displayport compliance > > > >testing in the > > > >i91

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-22 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:48 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > Are you saying > you'll reject this approach entirely? I'm saying that I don't see terrible lot of value in adding a bunch of code for a sticker, and that we should look into making it actually useful by testing the paths that end-users end

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-22 Thread Jesse Barnes
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 08:41:11 +0200 Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:10:35PM -0700, Todd Previte wrote: > > >This patch set adds the foundational support for Displayport compliance > > >testing in the > > >i915 driver. It implements the framework for automated test support that

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-21 Thread Daniel Vetter
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:10:35PM -0700, Todd Previte wrote: > >This patch set adds the foundational support for Displayport compliance > >testing in the > >i915 driver. It implements the framework for automated test support that > >preclude the > >need (most) for operator input during testing.

[Intel-gfx] [PATCH v2] Displayport compliance testing

2014-07-14 Thread Todd Previte
>This patch set adds the foundational support for Displayport compliance >testing in the >i915 driver. It implements the framework for automated test support that >preclude the >need (most) for operator input during testing. Tests for AUX transactions, >EDID reads >and basic link training have a