On Wed, 2019-04-10 at 13:11 +0100, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
> On 10/04/2019 12:48, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-04-10 12:43:22)
> > > @@ -754,8 +768,8 @@ static void test_flip(int i915, int vgem,
> > > unsigned hang)
> > > uint32_t offsets[4] = {};
> > > int fd;
> > >
> > > - bo[i].width = 1024;
> > > - bo[i].height = 768;
> > > + bo[i].width = mode->hdisplay;
> > > + bo[i].height = mode->vdisplay;
> > > bo[i].bpp = 32;
> > > vgem_create(vgem, &bo[i]);
> >
> > That may not result in a buffer that we are able to flip to. :|
> > width = ALIGN(hdisplay, 16); vdisplay should be ok.
>
> Oh.. well I don't know. Maarten helpfully described in the BZ that
> the
> skip is due BO being too small for the FB. Aligning width would then
> make it too large. Is that OK? Who assigned this display related IGT
> bug
> to me anyway? :))
I don't know about that. I have a task to improve the test in my
backlog too :)
This patch definitely improves the test. However, I wasn't able to
apply the patch cleanly on my tree. Maybe it needs a rebase? Anyway, CI
seems to be happy with the change.
Reviewed-by: Mika Kahola <mika.kahola@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> > I would query what happened to the scalers though :)
>
> Are they supposed to automagicaly apply any fb to any output? Or an
> explicit step is required? Regardless - it may be better to involve
> less
> of the driver and hardware stack in a simple test.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tvrtko
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
