On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 06:47:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > > 2015-03-25 17:15 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>: > > > And use the same colors for both flip and fills so that we can reuse > > > crcs. Some details: > > > - For the flip_and_foo tests flip twice so that we again start with > > > the black framebuffer and hence have a real change when painting it > > > white. > > > > But you don't really check the CRC after the first flip, so if it's > > completely ignored by the display engine, we won't know. That still > > looks like a regression from the previous code we had. > > > > > - The upload for the rendercopy source isn't fast, but hey I'm lazy. > > > > You're also changing everything form single-pixel write to full-fb > > write, which is not necessarily a bad thing (although slower), but > > could at least be on the changelog. > > The reason I riginally used very small operations was to make sure the > hardware catches precicesly such small operations. If we just blast > away the entire thing we can't tell if the hardware would even notice > a small change. Although since hardware tracking was declared to be > the evil that may not matter so much, except people still want to use > the GTT tracking for some reason. We're still using the gtt cpu write tracking, which is the only hw tracking bit that works per-line-block. I guess if we see that one fail we can add a specific testcase for the pattern, but for now I kinda trust the hw in that regard actually. At least I haven't seen bugs like that. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
