On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:14:39PM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 01:20:50PM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:03:55AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > 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. > > > > We don't even test panning, which is where I think the gtt tracking code > > is broken. And you can't catch bugs like that if you paint the entire > > fb. > > You could pan an entire width from an all black to an all white > framebuffer. At least I don't see a fundamental difference in panning 1 > pixel and in panning by 1600. We don't want to test invalidate due to panning (that's a flip which means the hw will nuke the entire thing anyway), instead we want to test invalidating when scanning out a panned fb and there's a gtt write into the visible part. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
