Re: [PATCH v2] drm/exynos: use atomic helper commit

From: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
To: Sean Paul <seanpaul@chromium.org>
Cc: Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@math.uni-bielefeld.de>,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/exynos: use atomic helper commit
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:03:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170123180311.7cg2pzb4wckdzy5b@phenom.ffwll.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170123162041.GA22897@trickycodes.roam.corp.google.com>

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:20:42AM -0500, Sean Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 05:01:56PM +0100, Tobias Jakobi wrote:
> > Sean Paul wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > 
> > >>>>> As of now, I don't see any case. even without Maarten's patch set, it works well - actually, I had a test with atomic test app more than 10 hours..
> > >>>> Can you provide this test application? In particular I'm asking this
> > >>>> because libdrm currently doesn't provide any tests using the atomic API.
> > >>>> So this application might be of interest also for other people.
> > >>>
> > >>> Below is the app I tested. Know that this application is from chromiumOS tree and I just fixed some parts for internal test.
> > >>> https://review.tizen.org/git/?p=atform/upstream/libdrm.git;a=commitdiff;h�3bd95f2c5a9b4b69062a3ff008947054b94f55
> > >> Thanks, any chance this is going to be submitted upstream?
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Probably not in its current form. I just wrote it to quickly test out
> > > some stuff we didn't yet support in CrOS. I don't really think it's fit
> > > for inclusion upstream.
> > Thanks for the clarification! Just voicing my interest here to have
> > something like this upstream. I mean with atomic now being mandatory for
> > new DRM kernel drivers and all... :-)
> 
> Agreed that tests are important, I'm just hesitant to sling my spaghetti code
> around too widely :)
> 
> The igt suite should have you covered for basic testing and more. CrOS also has a
> bsdrm test suite that may or may not become atomic-aware in the future. Both are
> better options that my atomictest, IMO.

+1 on igt. I kinda would like to nuke all other test apps we have floating
around, to avoid duplicating effort. Unfortunately we dont have a full
replacement for modetest in igt yet for manual testing. The testcases are
there, and igt supports manually/interactive testing so you can check the
results by hand, it's just not wired up yet for the tests that would be
equivalent to modetest ... hint, hint :-)
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel