On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:53:18PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:43:02PM +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote:
> > From: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Added new subtest for DC6 entry during DPMS on/off cycle.
> > During DPMS on/off cycle DC6 counter is incremented.
> >
> > v2: Renamed the subtest name.
> > v3: Rebased.
> > v4: Rebased and address review comment.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/pm_dc.c | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/pm_dc.c b/tests/pm_dc.c
> > index 05f1363..244665d 100644
> > --- a/tests/pm_dc.c
> > +++ b/tests/pm_dc.c
> > @@ -241,6 +241,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> > test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC5);
> > }
> >
> > + igt_subtest("dc6-dpms") {
> > + /* Check DC6 counter is available for the platform.
> > + * Skip the test if counter is not available.
> > + */
> > + read_dc_counter(data.drm_fd, CHECK_DC6);
> > + test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC6);
> > + //cleanup(&data);
It was not there in my original patch, it was my bad.
>
> Some debugging left-over above. That makes me think, why do the PSR
> subtests do a modeset while the dpms ones don't? I think there is no
> reason to make them behave differently.
AFAIK PSR will get trigger after consecutive programmed idle frame.
That requires at least a flip in test, that is the reason PSR requires
a flip to test it, while DPMS can directly turn off the display.
Please suggest if it can be done better.
>
> > + }
> > +
> > igt_fixture {
> > close(data.debugfs_fd);
> > display_fini(&data);
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
--
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
