On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 07:33:33PM +0200, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > This library provides helpers for common functionality needed by test
>> > programs.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > Changes in v2:
>> > - fix a couple of memory leaks and get rid of some unneeded code
>> >
>> > tests/tegra/Makefile.am | 10 +-
>> > tests/tegra/drm-test-tegra.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > tests/tegra/drm-test-tegra.h | 55 ++++++++++
>> > tests/tegra/drm-test.c | 248 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> > tests/tegra/drm-test.h | 72 +++++++++++++
>> > 5 files changed, 521 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> > create mode 100644 tests/tegra/drm-test-tegra.c
>> > create mode 100644 tests/tegra/drm-test-tegra.h
>> > create mode 100644 tests/tegra/drm-test.c
>> > create mode 100644 tests/tegra/drm-test.h
>>
>> This isn't really important at this point, but it looks to me like
>> tests/tegra/drm-test.[ch] isn't really tegra-specific. If so, perhaps
>> some other tests can benefit from it? Doing so is of course something
>> whoever writes those tests should do, though. Leaving them in the
>> tegra-subdir is probably fine.
>
> Daniel Vetter and I have been "discussing" this for a while now. There
> are a bunch of tests in the intel-gpu-tools repository that aren't Intel
> specific either and the idea is to eventually collect all those test
> cases in a common location so that they can be reused by other drivers
> too, but so far nobody's had time to do that yet.
Right. Let's just leave it for later, then.
>> > +int drm_tegra_gr2d_fill(struct drm_tegra_gr2d *gr2d, struct drm_framebuffer *fb,
>> > + unsigned int x, unsigned int y, unsigned int width,
>> > + unsigned int height, uint32_t color)
>> > +{
>> > + struct drm_tegra_bo *fbo = fb->data;
>> > + struct drm_tegra_pushbuf *pushbuf;
>> > + struct drm_tegra_fence *fence;
>> > + struct drm_tegra_job *job;
>> > + int err;
>> > +
>> > + err = drm_tegra_job_new(&job, gr2d->channel);
>> > + if (err < 0)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + err = drm_tegra_pushbuf_new(&pushbuf, job);
>> > + if (err < 0)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>>
>> I think this helper would be generally more useful if it skipped the
>> above two, and required the call-sites to do them instead.
>>
>> > + err = drm_tegra_pushbuf_prepare(pushbuf, 32);
>> > + if (err < 0)
>> > + return err;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_SETCL(0, HOST1X_CLASS_GR2D, 0);
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_MASK(0x9, 0x9);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = 0x0000003a;
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = 0x00000000;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_MASK(0x1e, 0x7);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = 0x00000000;
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = (2 << 16) | (1 << 6) | (1 << 2);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = 0x000000cc;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_MASK(0x2b, 0x9);
>> > +
>> > + /* relocate destination buffer */
>> > + err = drm_tegra_pushbuf_relocate(pushbuf, fbo, 0, 0);
>> > + if (err < 0) {
>> > + fprintf(stderr, "failed to relocate buffer object: %d\n", err);
>> > + return err;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = fb->pitch;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_NONINCR(0x35, 1);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = color;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_NONINCR(0x46, 1);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = 0x00000000;
>> > +
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = HOST1X_OPCODE_MASK(0x38, 0x5);
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = height << 16 | width;
>> > + *pushbuf->ptr++ = y << 16 | x;
>> > +
>>
>> ...and stop here.
>>
>> That way we can use it for tests that perform multiple fills in one submit etc.
>
> How about we make drm_tegra_gr2d_fill() take a drm_tegra_pushbuf object
> and push the commands as you suggest and then add a wrapper, say
> drm_tegra_gr2d_fill_simple() for convenience when a single fill per
> submit is good enough?
I wouldn't be against such a convenience-wrapper, no. I would
personally leave that for the person who added more such tests,
though. I guess that could be said about my suggestion as well ;-)
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_SETCL(offset, classid, mask) \
>> > + ((0x0 << 28) | (((offset) & 0xfff) << 16) | (((classid) & 0x3ff) << 6) | ((mask) & 0x3f))
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_INCR(offset, count) \
>> > + ((0x1 << 28) | (((offset) & 0xfff) << 16) | ((count) & 0xffff))
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_NONINCR(offset, count) \
>> > + ((0x2 << 28) | (((offset) & 0xfff) << 16) | ((count) & 0xffff))
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_MASK(offset, mask) \
>> > + ((0x3 << 28) | (((offset) & 0xfff) << 16) | ((mask) & 0xffff))
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_IMM(offset, data) \
>> > + ((0x4 << 28) | (((offset) & 0xfff) << 16) | ((data) & 0xffff))
>> > +#define HOST1X_OPCODE_EXTEND(subop, value) \
>> > + ((0xe << 28) | (((subop) & 0xf) << 24) | ((value) & 0xffffff))
>> > +
>> > +#define HOST1X_CLASS_GR2D 0x51
>>
>> Hmm, shouldn't these be available from somewhere else already? No
>> point in repeating the same macros over and over again, no?
>
> I don't think we have these anywhere else. It seems to be custom to have
> numerous redefinitions of this kind of macro throughout various drivers.
> I suspect that the reason is that these can vary depending on chipset
> revision and keeping a global list would require a revision prefix to be
> prepended to all of them.
>
> Even if we want them somewhere else, I wouldn't know where they'd be
> best kept to be honest.
OK. That's a bit of a shame though, as it means "everyone"
(xf86-video-opentegra and mesa + grate tests) must carry these
definitions. But it's not important, and can be fixed later if it
turns out to be a nuisance.
>> > diff --git a/tests/tegra/drm-test.c b/tests/tegra/drm-test.c
> [...]
>> > +static int drm_screen_probe_connector(struct drm_screen *screen,
>> > + drmModeConnectorPtr connector)
>> > +{
>> > + drmModeEncoderPtr encoder;
>> > + drmModeCrtcPtr crtc;
>> > + drmModeFBPtr fb;
>> > +
>> > + encoder = drmModeGetEncoder(screen->fd, connector->encoder_id);
>> > + if (!encoder)
>> > + return -ENODEV;
>> > +
>> > + crtc = drmModeGetCrtc(screen->fd, encoder->crtc_id);
>> > + if (!crtc) {
>> > + drmModeFreeEncoder(encoder);
>> > + return -ENODEV;
>> > + }
>> > +
>> > + screen->old_fb = crtc->buffer_id;
>> > +
>> > + fb = drmModeGetFB(screen->fd, crtc->buffer_id);
>> > + if (!fb) {
>> > + /* TODO: create new framebuffer */
>>
>> What's the implications of not doing what this TODO says?
>
> It currently just means that we don't want to deal with this situation,
> which I think shouldn't be happening in the first place anyway. So the
> TODO is there mostly as a reminder that this could happen and that there
> *might* be something more useful than returning an error that could be
> done.
Right. Perhaps it could happen if no monitor is connected? That's
probably not important, though.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
