On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:31:05AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> We may not be perfect, but if we don't even test, we will probably
> only get worse over time.
>
> The function called makes sure we restore whatever was the original
> FBC parameter when we exit the test, so this should not affect the
> other tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tests/kms_fbc_crc.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> index 37221ac..d964224 100644
> --- a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> +++ b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> @@ -559,10 +559,10 @@ igt_main
> igt_assert_lt(0, fread(buf, 1, sizeof(buf), status));
> fclose(status);
> buf[sizeof(buf) - 1] = '\0';
> - igt_require_f(!strstr(buf, "unsupported on this chipset") &&
> - !strstr(buf, "disabled per module param") &&
> - !strstr(buf, "disabled per chip default"),
> - "FBC not supported/enabled\n");
> + igt_require_f(!strstr(buf, "unsupported on this chipset"),
> + "FBC not supported\n");
> +
> + igt_set_module_param_int("enable_fbc", 1);
This is risky since on older chips fbc is known to pretty much insta-kill
the box. Imo we should have a gen6+ here at least (that's roughly the
point where the hw workarounds start to sound less scary).
Trying to enable this on older platforms just isn't worth it imo.
-Daniel
>
> data.bufmgr = drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_init(data.drm_fd, 4096);
> igt_assert(data.bufmgr);
> --
> 2.1.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
--
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
