Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] igt/kms_properties.c: fix test case for setting immutable properties

[Harry Wentland]

On 2017-06-09 08:22 AM, Arkadiusz Hiler wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:06:44PM -0400, Bhawanpreet Lakha wrote:
>> Test doesn't check if the property is immutable, and fails.
>> Added conditions to detect if the property is immutable.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bhawanpreet Lakha 
>> ---
>>  tests/kms_properties.c | 6 +-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/kms_properties.c b/tests/kms_properties.c
>> index c15026b8..9585e8e9 100644
>> --- a/tests/kms_properties.c
>> +++ b/tests/kms_properties.c
>> @@ -138,7 +138,11 @@ static void test_properties(int fd, uint32_t type, 
>> uint32_t id, bool atomic)
>>  if (!atomic) {
>>  ret = drmModeObjectSetProperty(fd, id, type, prop_id, 
>> prop_value);
>>  
>> -igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
>> +if (!(prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE))
>> +igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
>> +else
>> +igt_assert(ret != 0);
>> +
>>  } else {
>>  ret = drmModeAtomicAddProperty(req, id, prop_id, 
>> prop_value);
>>  igt_assert(ret >= 0);
> 
> 
> What about read only properties and setting them using the atomic calls
> below?
> 
> Do we have that scenario already? Seems lika a potential false fail as
> well.
> 

Good point. We'll take a look at connector-properties-atomic test which
should exercise the atomic code path.

Harry
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] igt/kms_properties.c: fix test case for setting immutable properties

[Arkadiusz Hiler]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 04:06:44PM -0400, Bhawanpreet Lakha wrote:
> Test doesn't check if the property is immutable, and fails.
> Added conditions to detect if the property is immutable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bhawanpreet Lakha 
> ---
>  tests/kms_properties.c | 6 +-
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/kms_properties.c b/tests/kms_properties.c
> index c15026b8..9585e8e9 100644
> --- a/tests/kms_properties.c
> +++ b/tests/kms_properties.c
> @@ -138,7 +138,11 @@ static void test_properties(int fd, uint32_t type, 
> uint32_t id, bool atomic)
>   if (!atomic) {
>   ret = drmModeObjectSetProperty(fd, id, type, prop_id, 
> prop_value);
>  
> - igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> + if (!(prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE))
> + igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
> + else
> + igt_assert(ret != 0);
> +
>   } else {
>   ret = drmModeAtomicAddProperty(req, id, prop_id, 
> prop_value);
>   igt_assert(ret >= 0);


What about read only properties and setting them using the atomic calls
below?

Do we have that scenario already? Seems lika a potential false fail as
well.

-- 
Cheers,
Arek

___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx