On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 07:32:35AM -0800, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> 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..
I think for such a major feature like PSR a few seconds in BAT is totally
ok.
-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
