Hi Carlos,
On 9/4/23 13:57, Carlos wrote:
Hi Maíra,
On 8/26/23 10:58, Maíra Canal wrote:
Hi Carlos,
On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:
Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with
modifier on a device that doesn't support it.
Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const
struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c
KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create,
drm_framebuffer_create_cases,
drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc);
+/*
+ * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except
that it
+ * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1,
covering
+ * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without
the
+ * device really supporting it.
+ */
+static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct
kunit *test)
+{
+ struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+ struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev;
+ int buffer_created = 0;
+
+ /* A valid cmd with modifier */
+ struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = {
+ .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT,
+ .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 },
+ .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 *
MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 },
+ .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS,
+ };
+
+ mock->private = &buffer_created;
+ dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1;
+
+ drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, NULL);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created);
+}
+
static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
+ KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),
Could we preserve alphabetical order?
I've see a lot of other tests files with this ordered by every KUNIT_CASE()
coming before KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(), with each set ordered among themselves.
Did younoticed that or are you suggesting ordering it even so? Or maybe
you're referring about another unordered thing that I didn't noticed?
Actually, I was suggesting to keep the alphabetical order related to the
tests naming. So, drm_test_framebuffer_create would come ahead of
drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported.
Best Regards,
- Maíra
Thanks,
Carlos
Best Regards,
- Maíra
KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create,
drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params),
{ }
};
