On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:42:45PM -0500, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Ben Widawsky > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think we all agree there is no point in holding up the series for this, > > right? > > Yeah, just a question of what actually makes it in :) Given that the > counter is returning BS values for unknown reasons, I think the test > should just fail on the affected platforms until you figure out a > better upper bound. There's no shame in having failing tests, esp due > to hardware idiocy. > > -ilia
I don't mind failing tests, though I suspect until a developer actually wants this, it won't ever get fixed by us. Although, as I said on IRC, I think I'd like to do 2 tests for this then - one proving PS invocations is non-zero if QUERY_COUNTER_BITS is non-zero (since I believe that should be impossible no matter the HW implementation), the other expects a reasonable value, for some definition of reasonable which I've yet to define. In all, this extension is a bit of a trainwreck to write good tests for. I had secretly hoped one of the authors would chime in with their input. Anyhoo... will be a while before I have time to work on this again. Let's hope I make 10.6 :P -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Piglit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
