On 07/06/2023 13:48, Hans Verkuil wrote:
> On 07/06/2023 13:35, Hans Verkuil wrote:
>> On 29/05/2023 10:50, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
>>> Add a very simple test for
>>> VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING/VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING.
>>>
>>> We can't (at least at the moment) really know here what kind of routings
>>> the driver would accept, but we can test a VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING call,
>>> followed by a VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING call with the routing we
>>> received.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp | 12 ++++++++++++
>>> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h | 1 +
>>> utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
>>> index d7c10482..f082f569 100644
>>> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
>>> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.cpp
>>> @@ -1249,6 +1249,18 @@ void testNode(struct node &node, struct node &node_m2m_cap, struct node &expbuf_
>>> node.is_passthrough_subdev = has_source && has_sink;
>>>
>>> if (has_routes) {
>>> + printf("Sub-Device routing ioctls:\n");
>>> +
>>> + for (unsigned which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY;
>>> + which <= V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE; which++) {
>>> +
>>> + printf("\ttest %s VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING/VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING: %s\n",
>>> + which ? "Active" : "Try",
>>> + ok(testSubDevRouting(&node, which)));
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + printf("\n");
>>> +
>>> for (unsigned which = V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_TRY;
>>> which <= V4L2_SUBDEV_FORMAT_ACTIVE; which++) {
>>>
>>> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
>>> index 0cd43980..35b2274b 100644
>>> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
>>> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-compliance.h
>>> @@ -375,6 +375,7 @@ int testSubDevEnum(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned str
>>> int testSubDevFormat(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
>>> int testSubDevSelection(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
>>> int testSubDevFrameInterval(struct node *node, unsigned pad, unsigned stream);
>>> +int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which);
>>>
>>> // Buffer ioctl tests
>>> int testReqBufs(struct node *node);
>>> diff --git a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
>>> index 07192bda..962d9244 100644
>>> --- a/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
>>> +++ b/utils/v4l2-compliance/v4l2-test-subdevs.cpp
>>> @@ -551,3 +551,19 @@ int testSubDevSelection(struct node *node, unsigned which, unsigned pad, unsigne
>>>
>>> return have_sel ? 0 : ENOTTY;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +int testSubDevRouting(struct node *node, unsigned which)
>>> +{
>>> + struct v4l2_subdev_routing routing = {};
>>> + struct v4l2_subdev_route routes[256] = {};
>>
>> NUM_ROUTES_MAX
>>
>>> +
>>> + routing.which = which;
>>> + routing.routes = (__u64)&routes;
>>> + routing.num_routes = 256;
>>
>> NUM_ROUTES_MAX
>
> Actually, you should also test the corner cases of NUM_ROUTES_MAX + 1
> (that should fail, right?) and setting num_routes to 0 and check that
> ENOSPC is returned and num_routes is updated.
>
> Also verify that 'reserved' is zeroed (i.e. set it to 0xff here, then
> check for 0 after the ioctl).
I assume also that if num_routes is set to 256, then G_ROUTING is called,
num_routes is updated to the actual number of routes? The spec does not
actually state that.
And what should happen when num_routes is set to 0 and S_ROUTING is called?
Would that clear all routes? Or is that an error? And can G_ROUTING actually
return num_routes == 0 as well if there are no routes defined?
Additional checks you can do is to verify that all sink/source pads are valid
and that 'flags' is valid.
Another test is setting a pad or stream to an invalid value and verify that EINVAL
is returned.
Note that the spec says that E2BIG is returned for S_ROUTING, but it is returned
for G_ROUTING as well, that should be updated.
Regards,
Hans
>
> Regards,
>
> Hans
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>> +
>>> + fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_G_ROUTING, &routing));
>>> +
>>> + fail_on_test(doioctl(node, VIDIOC_SUBDEV_S_ROUTING, &routing));
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>
>
