On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:52:40PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> 2015-06-15 12:14 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>:
> > It's simply a bit too scary on pre-gen6 and imo not worth the bother
> > really until someone starts to implement all the hacks an w/a required
> > on these platforms. On later platforms the issues are just with
> > correctness and performance hence no risk for hanging machines.
> >
> > Cc: Paulo Zanoni <przanoni@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > tests/kms_fbc_crc.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> > index d9642243465c..f2a86a690767 100644
> > --- a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> > +++ b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c
> > @@ -562,7 +562,8 @@ igt_main
> > igt_require_f(!strstr(buf, "unsupported on this chipset"),
> > "FBC not supported\n");
> >
> > - igt_set_module_param_int("enable_fbc", 1);
> > + if (intel_gen(data.devid) >= 6)
> > + igt_set_module_param_int("enable_fbc", 1);
>
> I would prefer the more explicit:
>
> igt_require_f(intel_gen(data.devid) >= 6, "Too afraid to test this.");
The problem with this is that it'll result in an unconditional skip even
on brave souls trying to test fbc on pre-gen5. Hence the explicit control
flow.
-Daniel
> igt_set_module_param_int("enable_fbc", 1);
>
> We also need to patch kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c, but I can do this
> after your patch if you want.
>
> >
> > data.bufmgr = drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_init(data.drm_fd, 4096);
> > igt_assert(data.bufmgr);
> > --
> > 2.1.4
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Paulo Zanoni
--
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
