Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sat, 7 Mar 2020 17:08:55 +0900
From:   Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>
To:     Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@xs4all.nl>
Cc:     Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@chromium.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@cisco.com>,
        Tomasz Figa <tfiga@chromium.org>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>,
        Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>,
        Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@iki.fi>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Pawel Osciak <posciak@chromium.org>,
        linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 00/11] Implement V4L2_BUF_FLAG_NO_CACHE_* flags
Message-ID: <20200307080855.GE176460@google.com>
References: <20200302041213.27662-1-senozhatsky@chromium.org>
 <04241ce5-dc41-9ea8-a058-5c0d8f9ba5a4@xs4all.nl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <04241ce5-dc41-9ea8-a058-5c0d8f9ba5a4@xs4all.nl>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On (20/03/06 15:18), Hans Verkuil wrote:
[..]
> As mentioned in my v4 review I found a serious bug when testing with
> v4l2-compliance. That meant that this series was not tested properly,
> which is a requirement for something that touches the core framework.

I run tests locally on my board, but the scenarios are rather limited.

> I've posted an RFC patch with my v4l-utils changes (assumes you've run
> 'make sync-with-kernel' first), but that's just very basic testing. You
> can use it as your starting point.

Thanks. I'll try to use it as a starting point and run more "diverse"
tests cases.

> It needs to be expanded to test the various combinations of flags and
> capabilities. I don't think there is a reliable way of actually testing
> the cache hint functionality, so that can be skipped, but the compliance
> test should at least test the basic behavior depending on whether or not
> the cache hints capability is set.

I'll take a look.

> I also would like to see a patch adding cache hint support to an existing
> driver (more than one if possible) and the compliance output when tested
> against that driver.

Need to talk to Tomasz and Pawel first.

> You should also test with the test-media script in contrib/test: run as
> 'sudo test-media mc' to test with all the virtual drivers. If it all passes,
> then that's a good indication that there are at least no regressions.

OK, let me try.

	-ss