Hi,
On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 12:54:53AM +0530, Dipam Turkar wrote:
> Introduce unit tests for the drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() function to ensure
> the proper creation of DVI-I specific connector properties.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dipam Turkar <dipamt1729@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> index c66aa2dc8d9d..9ac1fd32c579 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
> */
>
> #include <drm/drm_connector.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_device.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> +#include <drm/drm_kunit_helpers.h>
>
> #include <kunit/test.h>
>
> @@ -58,6 +61,30 @@ static void drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_truncated(struct kunit *test)
> KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, ret, 0);
> };
>
> +/*
> + * Test that drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() succeeds and
> + * DVI-I subconnector and select subconectors properties have
> + * been created.
> + */
> +static void drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct drm_device *drm;
> + struct device *dev;
> +
> + dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
> +
> + drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm->mode_config.dvi_i_select_subconnector_property);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm->mode_config.dvi_i_subconnector_property);
> +
> + // Expect the function to return 0 if called twice.
This is not the proper comment format
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0);
This should be in a separate test, with a separate description. We want
to test two things: that the function works well, and that the function
still works if we call it a second time.
> +}
> +
> static struct kunit_case drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests[] = {
> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid,
> drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_gen_params),
> @@ -70,7 +97,18 @@ static struct kunit_suite drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite = {
> .test_cases = drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests,
> };
The test should be next to the test suite definition
> +static struct kunit_case drm_connector_tests[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties),
> + { }
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite drm_connector_test_suite = {
> + .name = "drm_connector",
That's too generic, the test suite is only about
drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(), not drm_connector in general.
> + .test_cases = drm_connector_tests,
> +};
> +
> kunit_test_suite(drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite);
> +kunit_test_suite(drm_connector_test_suite);
kunit_test_suites
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
