[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] igt/kms_addfb_basic: require display

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Maarten Lankhorst
<maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Op 28-06-18 om 14:10 schreef Daniel Vetter:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 02:06:49PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>> Op 28-06-18 om 13:54 schreef Daniel Vetter:
>>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 12:19:57PM +0200, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>>>>> Op 28-06-18 om 11:56 schreef Jani Nikula:
>>>>>> Running the tests with i915.disable_display=1 leads to IGT errors. Skip
>>>>>> tests that need display.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> References: http://patchwork.freedesktop.org/patch/msgid/20180608124057.6889-1-jani.nikula@intel.com
>>>>>> Cc: Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch>
>>>>>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the best paradigm for this? There's loads of random and cargo
>>>>>> culted igt_requires for this stuff, with various checks on pipes > 0
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> igt_display_require_output() is the easiest check to find if an output
>>>>> is connected, should be approximately same as display enabled. :)
>>>> Unfortunately not quite. I think we do want to run these tests here on
>>>> headless systems which have a display block, but no outputs connected.
>>>> Just for better test coverage and all that.
>>>>
>>>> I think what we want is a new
>>>>
>>>> igt_require_display(int fd)
>>>> {
>>>>     igt_display_t display;
>>>>     igt_display_init(&display, fd);
>>>>     igt_require(display->n_pipes > 0, "drm driver without display
>>>>     hardware\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> gtkdoc plus wiring it up needed too ofc.
>>>>
>>>> We could also patch up igt_display_init() to check for this (and probably
>>>> should, not sure about that), but a very simply igt_require helper that
>>>> only takes the fd seems useful to me for all the low-level tests like
>>>> kms_addfb_basic here which don't want/need a full igt_display_t
>>>> initialized.
>>> But igt_display is not without side effects. It sets the atomic cap, which would be surprising in a require statement.
>> Hm, then maybe we need to open-coude the drmgetresources call + checking
>> for numCrtcs. Not that many more lines really.
>>
>>> i915 without pipes should probably unset DRIVER_MODESET.
>> Too late by that point, and we're not the only driver doing this.
> Well drmGetResources could work, but I wouldn't put it in core unless other stuff cares about it.
> Just a function in kms_addfb_basic.c is probably good enough. :)

There's other testcase which want this too, this was just an example
... There's a subtest in vgem_prime, and then there's more outside of
BAT most likely.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch