[igt-dev] [i-g-t] tests/i915/i915_pm_dc: Fix DC9 subtest

[Petri Latvala]

Instead of "Fix DC9 test case", have the subject line of the patch
explain what changes to the code are done. Then in the body of the
patch, explain that the change fixes the DC9 test case because xyz.


-- 
Petri Latvala


On Wed, Dec 01, 2021 at 11:57:03AM +0530, Mastan Katragadda wrote:
> Reading prev_dc counter is most of the times 0 after reset
> comparison with 0 test gets failed. taken prev_dc counter after
> enterd into shallow DC state.
> 
> changes since V1:
>         - Removed new lines and warnings from checkpatch.pl
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mastan Katragadda <mastanx.katragadda at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c | 12 ++++++------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> index 4ebeb3eb..2c2c5086 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> @@ -434,22 +434,22 @@ static void setup_dc9_dpms(data_t *data, int dc_target)
>  	dpms_off(data);
>  	igt_skip_on_f(!(igt_wait(read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target) >
>  				prev_dc, 3000, 100)), "Unable to enters shallow DC states\n");
> +	prev_dc = read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target);
>  	dpms_on(data);
>  	cleanup_dc_dpms(data);
> +	dpms_off(data);
> +	sleep(1); /* wait for counters reset*/
> +	check_dc9(data, dc_target, prev_dc);
> +	dpms_on(data);
>  }
>  
>  static void test_dc9_dpms(data_t *data)
>  {
> -	int prev_dc, dc_target;
> +	int dc_target;
>  
>  	require_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, CHECK_DC5);
>  	dc_target = support_dc6(data->debugfs_fd) ? CHECK_DC6 : CHECK_DC5;
> -	prev_dc = read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target);
>  	setup_dc9_dpms(data, dc_target);
> -	dpms_off(data);
> -	sleep(1); /* wait for counters reset*/
> -	check_dc9(data, dc_target, prev_dc);
> -	dpms_on(data);
>  }
>  
>  static void kms_poll_state_restore(int sig)
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>