On 01/02/2017 14:55, Chris Wilson wrote:
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 02:33:22PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
[snip]
+ { }
+ }, *a, *b;
+ const unsigned int max_pages = 64;
+ int err = -ENOMEM;
+
+ /* Create VMA for many different combinations of planes and check
+ * that the page layout within the rotated VMA match our expectations.
+ */
+
+ obj = i915_gem_object_create_internal(i915, max_pages * PAGE_SIZE);
+ if (IS_ERR(obj))
+ goto err;
+
+ for (a = planes; a->width; a++) {
+ for (b = planes + ARRAY_SIZE(planes); b-- != planes; ) {
+ struct i915_ggtt_view view;
+ struct scatterlist *sg;
+ unsigned int n, max_offset;
+
+ max_offset = max(a->stride * a->height,
+ b->stride * b->height);
It shouldn't be min?
+ GEM_BUG_ON(max_offset >= max_pages);
+ max_offset = max_pages - max_offset;
No, because it is inverted ^
I see.
+ view.type = I915_GGTT_VIEW_ROTATED;
+ view.rotated.plane[0] = *a;
+ view.rotated.plane[1] = *b;
Single plane tests could be added as well.
There are. Second plane is set to {0}. That's the only way to do single
plane tests, as I was thinking second plane with a first plane would be
illegal?
Missed that.
+
+ for_each_prime_number_from(view.rotated.plane[0].offset, 0, max_offset) {
+ for_each_prime_number_from(view.rotated.plane[1].offset, 0, max_offset) {
I would try all offsets here and not only primes since it is super
fast and more importantly more realistic.
I was worried about the combinatorial explosion. We could have upto
65536 checks for each pair of planes (currently x20).
There is at least one even offset so OK. :)
+ struct i915_address_space *vm =
+ &i915->ggtt.base;
+ struct i915_vma *vma;
+
+ vma = i915_vma_instance(obj, vm, &view);
+ if (IS_ERR(vma)) {
+ err = PTR_ERR(vma);
+ goto err_object;
+ }
+
+ if (!i915_vma_is_ggtt(vma) ||
+ vma->vm != vm) {
+ pr_err("VMA is not in the GGTT!\n");
+ err = -EINVAL;
+ goto err_object;
+ }
+
+ if (memcmp(&vma->ggtt_view, &view, sizeof(view))) {
Just because rotation is the largest view! :) Need to use the "type" here.
I wasn't really sure the value in doing both memcmp() and
i915_vma_compare(). I think I'm just going to stick with
i915_vma_compare() only.
I'm OK with that. Wanted even to suggest dropping the is_ggtt test since
that feels should happen in a more basic VMA creation test. But if such
doesn't exist then it's fine.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
