Hi Maíra, thanks for reviewing!
On 8/26/23 10:53 AM, Maíra Canal wrote:
Hi Carlos,
On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:
The dev_private member of drm_device is deprecated and its use should
be avoided. Stop using it by embedding the drm_device onto a mock struct
with a void pointer like dev_private, using it instead.
Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 29 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
index f759d9f3b76e..173d42b145ed 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -317,11 +317,17 @@ static const struct drm_framebuffer_test
drm_framebuffer_create_cases[] = {
},
};
+struct drm_mock {
+ struct drm_device dev;
+ void *private;
+};
Could we call it drm_device_mock or maybe drm_framebuffer_mock? I
believe that drm_mock its a bit generic.
I could agree that it's a bit generic. Exclusively for this patch,
drm_device_mock could be a good candidate, but later in this patchset
I use that same struct to allocate a drm_file mock too, so I think
that the name must at least fit well to it too. In that case I would
prefer naming it drm_framebuffer_mock, but doesn't it looks like a
name for a drm_framebuffer mock, which isn't the case? I'm trying to
figure out another name to it but I'm not able to do that.
Also, wouldn't be better to create a `int buffer_created` variable
instead of creating a `void *private`?
Again, I could agree with that for this patch only, but the
`void *private` is used in that way in some other tests from this
series too. Anyway, I noticed that all but one test is using it to
"return" integer (boolean, to be honest) values from mocked
functions, except by the fb_create_addfb2_mock function on patch 9,
that use it to return a reference to a drm_framebuffer. So, in that
case,do you think it would be better to have explicitly some boolean on
the struct instead of this void pointer? If so, should I keep that void
pointer for fb_create_addfb2_mock use or should I replace it to a
drm_framebuffer pointer?
By the way, I guess that having a void pointer on a general purpose
struct like that would let further tests to adapt it to its own use,
but I don't really know if it worth the effort.
Thanks,
Carlos
Best Regards,
- Maíra
+
static struct drm_framebuffer *fb_create_mock(struct drm_device *dev,
struct drm_file *file_priv,
const struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 *mode_cmd)
{
- int *buffer_created = dev->dev_private;
+ struct drm_mock *mock = container_of(dev, typeof(*mock), dev);
+ int *buffer_created = mock->private;
*buffer_created = 1;
return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
}
@@ -332,16 +338,18 @@ static struct drm_mode_config_funcs
mock_config_funcs = {
static int drm_framebuffer_test_init(struct kunit *test)
{
- struct drm_device *mock;
+ struct drm_mock *mock;
+ struct drm_device *dev;
mock = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*mock), GFP_KERNEL);
KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, mock);
+ dev = &mock->dev;
- mock->mode_config.min_width = MIN_WIDTH;
- mock->mode_config.max_width = MAX_WIDTH;
- mock->mode_config.min_height = MIN_HEIGHT;
- mock->mode_config.max_height = MAX_HEIGHT;
- mock->mode_config.funcs = &mock_config_funcs;
+ dev->mode_config.min_width = MIN_WIDTH;
+ dev->mode_config.max_width = MAX_WIDTH;
+ dev->mode_config.min_height = MIN_HEIGHT;
+ dev->mode_config.max_height = MAX_HEIGHT;
+ dev->mode_config.funcs = &mock_config_funcs;
test->priv = mock;
return 0;
@@ -350,11 +358,12 @@ static int drm_framebuffer_test_init(struct
kunit *test)
static void drm_test_framebuffer_create(struct kunit *test)
{
const struct drm_framebuffer_test *params = test->param_value;
- struct drm_device *mock = test->priv;
+ struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+ struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev;
int buffer_created = 0;
- mock->dev_private = &buffer_created;
- drm_internal_framebuffer_create(mock, ¶ms->cmd, NULL);
+ mock->private = &buffer_created;
+ drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, ¶ms->cmd, NULL);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, params->buffer_created, buffer_created);
}
