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

[Carlos <gcarlos@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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),