Re: [PATCH v1 0/8] drm/ci: Add support for GPU and display testing

[Vignesh Raman]

Hi Daniel,

On 09/01/24 19:08, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 at 12:11, Vignesh Raman <vignesh.raman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Some ARM SOCs have a separate display controller and GPU, each with
> > different drivers. For mediatek mt8173, the GPU driver is powervr,
> > and the display driver is mediatek. In the case of mediatek mt8183,
> > the GPU driver is panfrost, and the display driver is mediatek.
> > With rockchip rk3288/rk3399, the GPU driver is panfrost, while the
> > display driver is rockchip. For amlogic meson, the GPU driver is
> > panfrost, and the display driver is meson.
> >
> > IGT tests run various tests with different xfails and can test both
> > GPU devices and KMS/display devices. Currently, in drm-ci for MediaTek,
> > Rockchip, and Amlogic Meson platforms, only the GPU driver is tested.
> > This leads to incomplete coverage since the display is never tested on
> > these platforms. This commit series adds support in drm-ci to run tests
> > for both GPU and display drivers for MediaTek, Rockchip, and Amlogic
> > Meson platforms.
>
> Thanks a lot for these. The patches need to be squashed to be
> bisectable though. For example, patch #2 changes the MTK job names and
> adds more jobs, but the corresponding xfail updates only come in #7
> and #8. This means we have a span of a few patches where we don't have
> useful test results.
>
> A better sequencing would be something like:
>    1. add ANX7625 config
>    2. refactor _existing_ MTK display jobs to use YAML includes, change
> the existing job name, and rename the existing xfail set, remove
> IGT_FORCE_DRIVER from the script since it's now set by the job
>    3. add MTK Panfrost+PVR GPU jobs with new xfails, add xfail entry to
> MAINTAINERS
>    4+5: same as 2+3 but for Amlogic
>    6+7: same as 2+3 but for Rockchip
>
> Then the separate rename/update xfail commits just disappear, as does
> the removal of IGT_FORCE_DRIVER, because it's just done incrementally
> as part of the commits which change the related functionality. It's
> extremely important that every change can work standalone, instead of
> introducing intermediate breakage which is only fixed in later commits
> in the series.

Thank you for reviewing the patches. I agree, will follow this sequence 
and send a v2 version.

Regards,
Vignesh