On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:15:30PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > Hey, > > Op 06-06-17 om 10:29 schreef Tvrtko Ursulin: > > > > On 06/06/2017 09:06, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: > >> Op 05-04-17 om 15:49 schreef Ville Syrjälä: > >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:00:53PM +0300, ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrj...@linux.intel.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> I figured it's about time I fix what I broke with my fb offset stuff. > >>>>> I've posted the scaler thing before, but the watermark and fbc stuff > >>>>> is new. > >>>>> > >>>>> Based on some quick tests the WM fixes seem effective. Or at least > >>>>> underruns seemed to disappear when I was running xonotic with 90/270 > >>>>> degree rotation. > >>>> The key question for me is would we be able to detect any of the errors > >>>> in igt? How can we improve our testing? > >>> The rotation test definitely would need some love. It fails to detect > >>> these problems because it scans out a square image. Making it non-square > >>> would at least catch the use of the scaler when it shouldn't be used. > >>> > >>> Detecting the watermark breakage is less clear. I suppose making the > >>> plane have a very wide or very tall aspect ratio might help induce > >>> underruns with the broken wm code. > >>> > >>> Another thing that may or may not be missing from the test is panning. > >>> I'd also like to test scaling, but sadly our hardware makes that > >>> rather hard by not allowing us to force nearest and/or linear filtering, > >>> and bspec doesn't actually document what kind of algorithm the hardware > >>> uses for the different filter modes. > >>> > >> Agreed, the whole series is useful but until we have some tests we may as > >> well not commit it. Nothing prevents it from being broken again in the > >> next commit. :( > > > > In case tests hit a stumbling blocks/delays, I would appreciate if this got > > reviewed and merged soonish. As it stands I've been applying (and > > occasionally forgetting to apply) patches locally since September. > > > > And FWIW I would report if it got re-broken, since I'm using monitors in > > portrait, and like to run recent drm-tip to help catch issues missed > > elsewhere. > > > >> I'll take a look and see if I can make kms_rotation_crc break without this > >> test. > > > > Would also need to upgrade the test to basic, or count on extended runs > > getting attention soon? > Maybe? > > I've pushed the fixed test. Managed to test that the scaler is enabled > incorrectly and the WM underruns. > > Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankho...@linux.intel.com>
Thanks for the review, and updating the tests. Series pushed to dinq. -- Ville Syrjälä Intel OTC _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
