On Fri, Dec 06, 2024 at 04:48:43PM -0800, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> On 9/25/2024 12:23 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 03:59:18PM GMT, Jessica Zhang wrote:
> > > Check that all encoders attached to a given CRTC are valid
> > > possible_clones of each other.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> > > index 43cdf39019a4..cc4001804fdc 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_atomic_helper.c
> > > @@ -574,6 +574,25 @@ mode_valid(struct drm_atomic_state *state)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > > +static int drm_atomic_check_valid_clones(struct drm_atomic_state *state,
> > > + struct drm_crtc *crtc)
> > > +{
> > > + struct drm_encoder *drm_enc;
> > > + struct drm_crtc_state *crtc_state = drm_atomic_get_new_crtc_state(state,
> > > + crtc);
> > > +
> > > + drm_for_each_encoder_mask(drm_enc, crtc->dev, crtc_state->encoder_mask) {
> > > + if ((crtc_state->encoder_mask & drm_enc->possible_clones) !=
> > > + crtc_state->encoder_mask) {
> > > + DRM_DEBUG("crtc%d failed valid clone check for mask 0x%x\n",
> > > + crtc->base.id, crtc_state->encoder_mask);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return 0;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /**
> > > * drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset - validate state object for modeset changes
> > > * @dev: DRM device
> > > @@ -745,6 +764,10 @@ drm_atomic_helper_check_modeset(struct drm_device *dev,
> > > ret = drm_atomic_add_affected_planes(state, crtc);
> > > if (ret != 0)
> > > return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = drm_atomic_check_valid_clones(state, crtc);
> > > + if (ret != 0)
> > > + return ret;
> > > }
> >
> > Pretty much the same comment, we should have kunit tests for this.
>
> Hey Maxime,
>
> I'm working on the kunit test for this and had a question on the design for
> the unit test:
>
> Since this is a static helper that returns a pretty common error code, how
> would you recommend going about making sure that
> `drm_atomic_check_valid_clones()` specifically is returning the error (and
> not a different part of check_modeset) when testing the check_valid_clones()
> failure path?
There's two ways to go about it. Either you can unit test it, prepare a
series of custom states and use
EXPORT_SYMBOL_FOR_TESTS_ONLY/EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT, or you can go the
integration test way and just test that drm_atomic_check is rejected for
unsafe combinations.
I guess I'd prefer the former, but the latter also makes sense and
eventually, it checks what we want: to make sure that we reject such a
state. What part of the code does or with what error code is less
important imo.
Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
