[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 3/3] tests/kms_plane: Throw away yet another bi

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:44:28PM +0000, Shankar, Uma wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Ville Syrjälä [mailto:ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com]
> >Sent: Tuesday, July 2, 2019 7:00 PM
> >To: Kazlauskas, Nicholas <Nicholas.Kazlauskas at amd.com>
> >Cc: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Shankar, Uma <uma.shankar at intel.com>
> >Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 3/3] tests/kms_plane: Throw away yet another bi
> >
> >On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 01:20:47PM +0000, Kazlauskas, Nicholas wrote:
> >> On 6/28/19 3:44 PM, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> >> > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > CHV pipe A/C sprites are causing a crc mismatch with BT.601 when we
> >> > keep the six msbs. If we throw away one more bit we get matches for
> >> > BT.601. BT.709 matches even with 6 bits, as do the pipe B planes
> >> > with their programmable CSC. Also IVB and KBL were both happy with 6
> >> > bits, so doesn't seem that that these CHV mismatches are due to bugs
> >> > in our code, just the hw is a bit imprecise.
> >> >
> >> > Cc: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar at intel.com>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> With the title of this patch corrected ("Throw away yet another bit"),
> >> this series is:
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Nicholas Kazlauskas <nicholas.kazlauskas at amd.com>
> >>
> >> These patches are useful to have.
> >>
> >> However, I'm not sure how I feel about the naming on all of these new
> >> *_full functions or if they're really all needed. I think just having
> >> one function that explicitly sets all of this is probably enough
> >> rather than having these 4 new functions.
> >
> >I suppose I could just use igt_create_fb_with_bo_size() and hand roll the solid fill in
> >the test.
> 
> Yeah this sounds good. Overall this patch looks ok.
> Reviewed-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shanka at intel.com>
> 
> I tested this as well on ICL and looks like below test passes without any failure:
> Subtest pixel-format-pipe-A-planes: SUCCESS (423.398s)

Yeah, it already passes with the current upstream code with the wonky
icsc coefficients. Might be nice to test how many correct bits we can
get with the current vs. fixed coefficents.

> So, 
> Tested-by: Uma Shankar <uma.shankar at intel.com>
> 
> >--
> >Ville Syrjälä
> >Intel

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel