Re: [PATCH 1/3] kci-gitlab: Introducing GitLab-CI Pipeline for Kernel Testing
Guenter Roeck <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kernelci,org.freedesktop.lists.dri-devel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest,org.kernel.vger.workflows |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CABXOdTcT+szLRMfx=3WFoXDirOmWCY7T+8Q+zZJ=B5GscpDNnQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 9:09 AM Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> wrote: [ ...] > > And singling out DRM because it regularly allegedly breaks things on > xtensa or m68k and claiming we're not taking CI seriously because of it > is completely ridiculous. If the all the subsystems were taking CI as > seriously as DRM, we would be in a much better place. > FWIW: $ git grep CONFIG_DRM arch/xtensa/ arch/m68k/ arch/m68k/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM=y arch/m68k/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM_FBDEV_EMULATION=y arch/m68k/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM_VIRTIO_GPU=y arch/xtensa/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM=y arch/xtensa/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM_VGEM=y arch/xtensa/configs/virt_defconfig:CONFIG_DRM_VIRTIO_GPU=y If that isn't supported, it might really make sense to declare that CONFIG_DRM depends on !xtensa and !m68k. Guenter