Re: [PATCH 07/10] drm/tests: Add test for drm_framebuffer_init()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Maíra,

On 8/26/23 11:16, Maíra Canal wrote:
Hi Carlos,

On 8/25/23 13:11, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:
Add a single KUnit test case for the drm_framebuffer_init function.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
index 3d14d35b4c4d..50d88bf3fa65 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -557,8 +557,60 @@ static void drm_test_framebuffer_lookup(struct kunit *test)
      KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, fb2);
  }
  +static void drm_test_framebuffer_init(struct kunit *test)
+{
+    struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+    struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev;
+    struct drm_device wrong_drm = { };
+    struct drm_format_info format = { };
+    struct drm_framebuffer fb1 = { .dev = dev, .format = &format };
+    struct drm_framebuffer *fb2;
+    struct drm_framebuffer_funcs funcs = { };
+    int ret;
+
+    /* Fails if fb->dev doesn't point to the drm_device passed on first arg */
+    fb1.dev = &wrong_drm;
+    ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
+    fb1.dev = dev;
+
+    /* Fails if fb.format isn't set */
+    fb1.format = NULL;
+    ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
+    fb1.format = &format;
+
+    ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
+
+    /*
+     * Check if fb->funcs is actually set to the drm_framebuffer_funcs
+     * passed to it
+     */
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb1.funcs, &funcs);
+
+    /* The fb->comm must be set to the current running process */
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, fb1.comm, current->comm);
+
+    /* The fb->base must be successfully initialized */
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fb1.base.id, 1);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fb1.base.type, DRM_MODE_OBJECT_FB);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, kref_read(&fb1.base.refcount), 1);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb1.base.free_cb, &drm_framebuffer_free);
+
+    /* Checks if the fb is really published and findable */
+    fb2 = drm_framebuffer_lookup(dev, NULL, fb1.base.id);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb2, &fb1);
+
+    /* There must be just that one fb initialized */
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.num_fb, 1);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.fb_list.prev, &fb1.head); +    KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.fb_list.next, &fb1.head);

Shouldn't we clean the framebuffer object?
What did you mean by "clean"? Firstly I supposed that it would be about
freeing some dynamically allocated frambuffer, but it's statically
allocated, so I believe it isn't what you are meaning. Is there some
collateral effect I'm not taking into account?

Thanks,
Carlos

Best Regards,
- Maíra

+}
+
  static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_cleanup),
+    KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_init),
      KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_lookup),
KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),
      KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_check_src_coords, check_src_coords_gen_params),



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux