Op 05-04-17 om 15:49 schreef Ville Syrjälä: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:00:53PM +0300, ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> I figured it's about time I fix what I broke with my fb offset stuff. >>> I've posted the scaler thing before, but the watermark and fbc stuff >>> is new. >>> >>> Based on some quick tests the WM fixes seem effective. Or at least >>> underruns seemed to disappear when I was running xonotic with 90/270 >>> degree rotation. >> The key question for me is would we be able to detect any of the errors >> in igt? How can we improve our testing? > The rotation test definitely would need some love. It fails to detect > these problems because it scans out a square image. Making it non-square > would at least catch the use of the scaler when it shouldn't be used. > > Detecting the watermark breakage is less clear. I suppose making the > plane have a very wide or very tall aspect ratio might help induce > underruns with the broken wm code. > > Another thing that may or may not be missing from the test is panning. > I'd also like to test scaling, but sadly our hardware makes that > rather hard by not allowing us to force nearest and/or linear filtering, > and bspec doesn't actually document what kind of algorithm the hardware > uses for the different filter modes. > Agreed, the whole series is useful but until we have some tests we may as well not commit it. Nothing prevents it from being broken again in the next commit. :( I'll take a look and see if I can make kms_rotation_crc break without this test. ~Maarten _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
