<div dir="ltr"><div>Will work on that.</div><div> </div><div>Dipam Turkar </div></div> <div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 8:39 PM Maxime Ripard <<a href="mailto:mripard@kernel.org">mripard@kernel.org</a>> wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi, On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 12:54:53AM +0530, Dipam Turkar wrote: > Introduce unit tests for the drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() function to ensure > the proper creation of DVI-I specific connector properties. > > Signed-off-by: Dipam Turkar <<a href="mailto:dipamt1729@gmail.com" target="_blank">dipamt1729@gmail.com</a>> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c > index c66aa2dc8d9d..9ac1fd32c579 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c > @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@ > */ > > #include <drm/drm_connector.h> > +#include <drm/drm_device.h> > +#include <drm/drm_drv.h> > +#include <drm/drm_kunit_helpers.h> > > #include <kunit/test.h> > > @@ -58,6 +61,30 @@ static void drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_truncated(struct kunit *test) > KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, ret, 0); > }; > > +/* > + * Test that drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() succeeds and > + * DVI-I subconnector and select subconectors properties have > + * been created. > + */ > +static void drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct drm_device *drm; > + struct device *dev; > + > + dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev); > + > + drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm), 0, DRIVER_MODESET); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm); > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm->mode_config.dvi_i_select_subconnector_property); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm->mode_config.dvi_i_subconnector_property); > + > + // Expect the function to return 0 if called twice. This is not the proper comment format > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0); This should be in a separate test, with a separate description. We want to test two things: that the function works well, and that the function still works if we call it a second time. > +} > + > static struct kunit_case drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests[] = { > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid, > drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_gen_params), > @@ -70,7 +97,18 @@ static struct kunit_suite drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite = { > .test_cases = drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests, > }; The test should be next to the test suite definition > +static struct kunit_case drm_connector_tests[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties), > + { } > +}; > + > +static struct kunit_suite drm_connector_test_suite = { > + .name = "drm_connector", That's too generic, the test suite is only about drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(), not drm_connector in general. > + .test_cases = drm_connector_tests, > +}; > + > kunit_test_suite(drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite); > +kunit_test_suite(drm_connector_test_suite); kunit_test_suites Maxime </blockquote></div>