Re: [PATCH 03/10] drm/tests: Add test case for drm_internal_framebuffer_create()

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

 



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),
      { }
  };



[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