Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:52:37 -0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 3/9] drm/ci: mediatek: Add job to test panfrost and powervr GPU driver | From | Helen Koike <> |
| |
On 19/02/2024 06:39, Vignesh Raman wrote: > Hi Helen, > > On 09/02/24 23:51, Helen Koike wrote: >> >> >> On 30/01/2024 12:03, Vignesh Raman wrote: >>> For mediatek mt8173, the GPU driver is powervr and for mediatek >>> mt8183, the GPU driver is panfrost. So add support in drm-ci to >>> test panfrost and powervr GPU driver for mediatek SOCs and update >>> xfails. Powervr driver was merged in linux kernel, but there's no >>> mediatek support yet. So disable the mt8173-gpu job which uses >>> powervr driver. >>> >>> Add panfrost specific tests to testlist and skip KMS tests for >>> panfrost driver since it is not a not a KMS driver. Also update >>> the MAINTAINERS file to include xfails for panfrost driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vignesh Raman <vignesh.raman@collabora.com> >> >> Hi Vignesh, thanks for your work. >> >> I'm still wondering about a few things, please check below. >> >>> --- >>> >>> v2: >>> - Add panfrost and PVR GPU jobs for mediatek SOC with new xfails, >>> add xfail >>> entry to MAINTAINERS. >> >> Maybe we should review how the xfails failes are named. I think they >> should start with the DRIVER_NAME instead of GPU_VERSION. >> >> For instance, consider the following job: >> >> mediatek:mt8183-gpu: >> extends: >> - .mt8183 >> variables: >> GPU_VERSION: mediatek-mt8183-gpu >> DRIVER_NAME: panfrost >> >> And we have mediatek-mt8183-gpu-skips.txt >> >> If there is an error, we want to notify the panfrost driver >> maintainers (and maybe not the mediatek driver maintainers), so >> MAINTAINERS file doesn't correspond to this. > > Agree. > >> >> How about a naming <driver name>_<hardware/gpu>_<type: gpu/display> ? >> >> powervr_mediatek-mt8173_gpu-skipts.txt >> mediatek_mediatek-mt8173_display-skipts.txt >> panfrost_mediatek-mt8183_gpu-skips.txt >> mediatek_mediatek-mt8183_display-skips.txt >> ... >> >> What do you think? > > Yes we can keep this naming. In this case do we still need gpu/display > in the xfails file name?
If you think this split is not required, then I'm fine dropping it.
Regards, Helen
> > Regards, > Vignesh
| |