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

[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 <gcarlos at disroot.org>
>> ---
>>   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 = &mock->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_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 },
>> +        .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * 
>> MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 },
>> +        .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS,
>> +    };
>> +
>> +    mock->private = &buffer_created;
>> +    dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1;
>> +
>> +    drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, 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),
>>       { }
>>   };