[PATCH 07/10] drm/tests: Add test for drm_framebuffer_init()

[Maíra Canal]

Hi Carlos,

On 8/25/23 13:11, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote:
> Add a single KUnit test case for the drm_framebuffer_init function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos at disroot.org>
> ---
>   drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
> index 3d14d35b4c4d..50d88bf3fa65 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c
> @@ -557,8 +557,60 @@ static void drm_test_framebuffer_lookup(struct kunit *test)
>   	KUNIT_EXPECT_NULL(test, fb2);
>   }
>   
> +static void drm_test_framebuffer_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv;
> +	struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev;
> +	struct drm_device wrong_drm = { };
> +	struct drm_format_info format = { };
> +	struct drm_framebuffer fb1 = { .dev = dev, .format = &format };
> +	struct drm_framebuffer *fb2;
> +	struct drm_framebuffer_funcs funcs = { };
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	/* Fails if fb->dev doesn't point to the drm_device passed on first arg */
> +	fb1.dev = &wrong_drm;
> +	ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
> +	fb1.dev = dev;
> +
> +	/* Fails if fb.format isn't set */
> +	fb1.format = NULL;
> +	ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
> +	fb1.format = &format;
> +
> +	ret = drm_framebuffer_init(dev, &fb1, &funcs);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Check if fb->funcs is actually set to the drm_framebuffer_funcs
> +	 * passed to it
> +	 */
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb1.funcs, &funcs);
> +
> +	/* The fb->comm must be set to the current running process */
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, fb1.comm, current->comm);
> +
> +	/* The fb->base must be successfully initialized */
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fb1.base.id, 1);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, fb1.base.type, DRM_MODE_OBJECT_FB);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, kref_read(&fb1.base.refcount), 1);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb1.base.free_cb, &drm_framebuffer_free);
> +
> +	/* Checks if the fb is really published and findable */
> +	fb2 = drm_framebuffer_lookup(dev, NULL, fb1.base.id);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, fb2, &fb1);
> +
> +	/* There must be just that one fb initialized */
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.num_fb, 1);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.fb_list.prev, &fb1.head);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, dev->mode_config.fb_list.next, &fb1.head);

Shouldn't we clean the framebuffer object?

Best Regards,
- Maíra

> +}
> +
>   static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = {
>   	KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_cleanup),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_init),
>   	KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_lookup),
>   	KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported),
>   	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_check_src_coords, check_src_coords_gen_params),