Re: [PATCH 03/10] drm/tests: Add test case for drm_internal_framebuffer_create()

2023-09-08 Thread Maira Canal

Hi Carlos,

On 9/4/23 13:57, Carlos wrote:

Hi Maíra,

On 8/26/23 10:58, Maíra Canal wrote:

Hi Carlos,

On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:

Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with
modifier on a device that doesn't support it.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 
  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c

index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const 
struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c
  KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, 
drm_framebuffer_create_cases,

    drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc);
  +/*
+ * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except 
that it
+ * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, 
covering
+ * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without 
the

+ * device really supporting it.
+ */
+static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct 
kunit *test)

+{
+    struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+    struct drm_device *dev = >dev;
+    int buffer_created = 0;
+
+    /* A valid cmd with modifier */
+    struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = {
+    .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT,
+    .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 },
+    .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * 
MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 },

+    .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS,
+    };
+
+    mock->private = _created;
+    dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1;
+
+    drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, , NULL);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created);
+}
+
  static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
+    KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),


Could we preserve alphabetical order?


I've see a lot of other tests files with this ordered by every KUNIT_CASE()
coming before KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(), with each set ordered among themselves.
Did younoticed that or are you suggesting ordering it even so? Or maybe
you're referring about another unordered thing that I didn't noticed?


Actually, I was suggesting to keep the alphabetical order related to the
tests naming. So, drm_test_framebuffer_create would come ahead of
drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported.


Best Regards,
- Maíra



Thanks,
Carlos


Best Regards,
- Maíra

KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, 
drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params),

  { }
  };


Re: [PATCH 03/10] drm/tests: Add test case for drm_internal_framebuffer_create()

2023-09-04 Thread Carlos

Hi Maíra,

On 8/26/23 10:58, Maíra Canal wrote:

Hi Carlos,

On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:

Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with
modifier on a device that doesn't support it.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 
  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c

index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const 
struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c
  KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, 
drm_framebuffer_create_cases,

    drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc);
  +/*
+ * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except 
that it
+ * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, 
covering
+ * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without 
the

+ * device really supporting it.
+ */
+static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct 
kunit *test)

+{
+    struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+    struct drm_device *dev = >dev;
+    int buffer_created = 0;
+
+    /* A valid cmd with modifier */
+    struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = {
+    .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT,
+    .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 },
+    .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * 
MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 },

+    .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS,
+    };
+
+    mock->private = _created;
+    dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1;
+
+    drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, , NULL);
+    KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created);
+}
+
  static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
+    KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),


Could we preserve alphabetical order?


I've see a lot of other tests files with this ordered by every KUNIT_CASE()
coming before KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(), with each set ordered among themselves.
Did younoticed that or are you suggesting ordering it even so? Or maybe
you're referring about another unordered thing that I didn't noticed?

Thanks,
Carlos


Best Regards,
- Maíra

KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, 
drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params),

  { }
  };


Re: [PATCH 03/10] drm/tests: Add test case for drm_internal_framebuffer_create()

2023-08-26 Thread Maíra Canal

Hi Carlos,

On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:

Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with
modifier on a device that doesn't support it.

Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho 
---
  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 
  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
@@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const struct 
drm_framebuffer_test *t, c
  KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, drm_framebuffer_create_cases,
  drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc);
  
+/*

+ * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except that it
+ * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, covering
+ * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without the
+ * device really supporting it.
+ */
+static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct kunit *test)
+{
+   struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
+   struct drm_device *dev = >dev;
+   int buffer_created = 0;
+
+   /* A valid cmd with modifier */
+   struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = {
+   .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT,
+   .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 },
+   .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * MAX_WIDTH, 
0, 0 },
+   .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS,
+   };
+
+   mock->private = _created;
+   dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1;
+
+   drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, , NULL);
+   KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created);
+}
+
  static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
+   KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),


Could we preserve alphabetical order?

Best Regards,
- Maíra


KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, 
drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params),
{ }
  };