On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:45 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 02:06:50AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> It takes from 2 to 5 seconds to run.
>>
>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> tests/kms_psr_sink_crc.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/kms_psr_sink_crc.c b/tests/kms_psr_sink_crc.c
>> index 28ba5c2..4baf131 100644
>> --- a/tests/kms_psr_sink_crc.c
>> +++ b/tests/kms_psr_sink_crc.c
>> @@ -605,6 +605,11 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + igt_subtest("psr_active_basic") {
>> + setup_test_plane(&data);
>> + igt_assert(wait_psr_entry(&data));
>> + }
>
> I think I'm dense, but why do we need 2 BAT tests for psr? This one here
> seems totally fine.
No your are not. I just sent 2 solutions because I didn't know which
one you would prefer and I forgot if 2 to 5 secs was acceptable as
BAT.
So, ignore the other test. I will resubmit only this one...
And I believe that I forgot the other patch that reduces to 5 the
maximum wait time for psr entry on this test case..
> -Daniel
>
>> +
>> for (op = PAGE_FLIP; op <= RENDER; op++) {
>> igt_subtest_f("primary_%s", op_str(op)) {
>> data.test_plane = PRIMARY;
>> --
>> 2.4.3
>>
>
> --
> 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
--
Rodrigo Vivi
Blog: http://blog.vivi.eng.br
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
