Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Have R700 piglit test results - Now what?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    446

    Default Have R700 piglit test results - Now what?

    I have just run the r500 suite of piglit tests, but am now wondering what to do with the results ;-). I seem to have a large directory structure full of files on my hands...

    My PC is a 64 bit I7 with a Radeon 4890, running vanilla 2.6.33.1 and xf86-ati from git, and F12's Mesa 7.7-4 packages. Both "glean/vertProg1" and "ARBvp1.0 tests" core-dumped during the test run.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    I think there's a summary report generated as well - my first thought would be to run the tests again with 7.9 mesa from git and see what changes.

    I have seen a number of side-by-side comparisons of piglet results, all in apparently the same format, which makes me think there is probably a standard mechanism for comparing results from multiple runs (rather than copy/paste into a spreadsheet).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    446

    Default Is Mesa 7.9 compatible with Fedora 12?

    Quote Originally Posted by bridgman View Post
    I think there's a summary report generated as well - my first thought would be to run the tests again with 7.9 mesa from git and see what changes.
    I'm trying not to kill the box here, and even Fedora 13 is only using Mesa 7.8! (So F13 is obsolete before it's even been released! Yay!) What will I need to compile and install Mesa 7.9? A new libdrm? A different Xserver?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Mesa 7.9 is in very early development (in fact git master turned to 7.9 a week ago or so, before that it was 7.8), so 7.8 is not that obsolete Bridgman was talking about git master, I think. It should easily work with F13 without compiling everything from git.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    Yep, git master. As Wielkie G said, it just became 7.9 recently, when the 7.8 branch was created.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    It's quite easy to build a minimal install of Mesa (just the driver you're interested in), install it to a temporary dir somewhere, then use environment variables to run your testcase:

    LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/tmp/mesa/lib" LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH="/tmp/mesa/lib/dri" glxgears

    Ask if the devs are interested in failing tests, see if there are open bug reports about these, and if not, file new bugs... (if you find something broken which worked in 7.7/7.8, do a bisect to find the problem).

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    446

    Default So I can have a local version of libdrm that is different from the "system" version?

    Quote Originally Posted by whizse View Post
    It's quite easy to build a minimal install of Mesa (just the driver you're interested in), install it to a temporary dir somewhere, then use environment variables to run your testcase:

    LD_LIBRARY_PATH="/tmp/mesa/lib" LIBGL_DRIVERS_PATH="/tmp/mesa/lib/dri" glxgears
    Does this include libdrm? I think I'll need libdrm from git to compile git Mesa, but F12 only has libdrm-2.4.17-1.fc12.i686. So would multiple, different installations of libdrm be a problem? Would the Xserver / xorg-drv-ati be able to handle that?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,458

    Default

    My understanding was that the libdrm version needed to be synced with the kernel drm code, not the userspace code.

    If you are already running 2.6.33.1 then I *think* you should be using libdrm 2.4.18 anyways (anyone ?).

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    983

    Default

    LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.17 is specified in configure.ac, so there you go

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    446

    Default Thanks, but...

    Quote Originally Posted by whizse View Post
    LIBDRM_RADEON_REQUIRED=2.4.17 is specified in configure.ac, so there you go
    That doesn't answer the question of whether I should be using 2.4.17 with a 2.6.33.1 kernel.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •