HI, > -----Original Message----- > From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Ander Conselvan De Oliveira > Sent: Tuesday, January 3, 2017 3:49 PM > To: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sarvela, Tomi P > <tomi.p.sarvela@xxxxxxxxx>; Latvala, Petri <petri.latvala@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Vetter, Daniel <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>; intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] drm/i915: Initialize num_scalers for skl and glk > too > > On Tue, 2017-01-03 at 12:26 +0200, Ander Conselvan De Oliveira wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-01-02 at 14:57 +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 03:54:41PM +0200, Ander Conselvan de Oliveira > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > After commit 1c74eeaf16b8 ("drm/i915: Move number of scalers > > > > initialization to runtime init"), scalers are not initialized > > > > properly for skl and glk since num_scalers is left as 0 for those > > > > platforms. > > > Next question is why this user visible change is not causing test > > > failures in BAT? > > There isn't a single test in BAT that tries to setup a plane with > > scaling. The kms_panel_fitting and kms_plane_scaling tests would have > > caught the issue, but they are not part of BAT. kms_plane and > > kms_universal_plane are also not part of BAT, and they also don't test > > scaling. > > Is it feasible to add one of those tests to BAT? Would it help with the time > constraints if we run it only on gen9+? There's already a test for gen9 specific > things in kms_universal_plane, maybe we could use that? We should test drive first how reliable test is and if reliable (not flip-flopping) yes. Petri, proposals? Jani Saarinen Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
