Hi Daniel,
On Wednesday, 21 March 2018 10:34:33 EET Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 01:24:09PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Ulrich,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On Thursday, 15 March 2018 16:45:38 EET Ulrich Hecht wrote:
> > > Fixes false negatives on non-i915 platforms.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Ulrich Hecht <ulrich.hecht+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > tests/kms_panel_fitting.c | 1 +
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/kms_panel_fitting.c b/tests/kms_panel_fitting.c
> > > index b3cee22..6d0be50 100644
> > > --- a/tests/kms_panel_fitting.c
> > > +++ b/tests/kms_panel_fitting.c
> > > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ static void test_atomic_fastset(igt_display_t
> > > *display)
> > >
> > > igt_set_module_param_int("fastboot", 1);
> > >
> > > igt_require(display->is_atomic);
> > >
> > > + igt_require(is_i915_device(display->drm_fd));
> > >
> > > igt_require(intel_gen(intel_get_drm_devid(display->drm_fd)) >= 5);
> >
> > I'm fine with this patch as a quick fix, but what in this test is Intel-
> > specific ? Can't we replace the Intel generation check with a different
> > feature check ?
>
> There's some checks in there that we can do certain panel fitter mode
> changes without a modeset (throught ALLOW_MODESET for atomic commits).
> That's 100% encoding intel hw constraints: Our hw can disable the panel
> fitter without a modest (so going from upscaled -> native resolution), but
> not any of the other changes (native -> upscaled or 2 different upscaled
> versions).
OK, thank you for the information.
Would it make sense to rename the Intel-specific test files to start with i915
(or any other Intel prefix) to make this clear ?
> > > for_each_pipe_with_valid_output(display, pipe, output) {
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
