Heh fair enough. I can put all the test information in the commit message. I think it's already in the code, but I'll double-check that as well.
Makes sense. I'll add the additional info in the commit messages. I always initialize all the variables I declare as a matter of course. I've always been of the opinion that I'd rather use up a little extra stack space than to have to track down the weird problems that can result from using uninitialized variables. Compilers complain about using uninitialized variables as well, so this is more of a difference of opinion than anything else. However, since there are unused variables, I'll remove those in the next iteration of this patch. :) Fair enough. It will be removed. I'll adjust the code to conform to the coding standard, whatever it happens to be. I think this is a problem with tab sizes (as evidenced below). My editor is set for 4-space tabs whereas the kernel standard is 8-space tabs. I've resisted changing it because it spaces the code out way too much for my liking while I'm editing. But apparently this is going to be an issue moving forward, so I'm going to have to change it. See above. This is the tab size problem. 4.2.2.9 is a separate test. Until we address it in the code, the test will fail. If additional explanation is necessary, that can be added. Same tab problem. My initials? :) That's an oversight on my part. Those are just notes that I'm writing to myself while working in the code. It's a tag I can easily search to make sure I haven't missed anything. That shouldn't have been in there and instead should have been a simple "FIXME" with the added explanation. To answer your question though, without 18bpp the test fails stating that the video format is not correct. Right. I think this whole block is what Daniel was referring to. The two reasons to move it to userspace are that a) it's a more reliable solution to do this in userspace and b) it allows for testing the real code paths that are actively in use rather than just testing dedicated paths for a compliance badge. No it shouldn't NAK the test since it's been implemented. That's an error in the code that needs to be corrected. Page 24 of the Link CTS spec has some info on the ACK/NAK. Here's what it says: "If the test mode requested is supported, the Source DUT shall start transmitting the TEST_VIDEO_PATTERN in the test mode requested, and set the TEST_ACK bit in the TEST_RESPONSE register." "If the test mode requested is not supported, the Source DUT shall signal a negative acknowledgement by setting the TEST_NAK bit in the TEST_RESPONSE register." "The Source DUT must acknowledge the interrupt by writing to the TEST_RESPONSE register within 5 seconds of IRQ HPD pulse detect." In some cases, the ACK can only be set after the operation is complete (i.e. active video being transmitted or correct test pattern being transmitted). So for uniformity, the ACK with the appropriate other test bits set is done at the end. Also, with the 5 second timeout, there's no need to respond with an ACK immediately in some cases and wait til the end in others.
--
Sent with Postbox |
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx