[PATCH i-g-t 3/7] tests/intel/kms_big_joiner: add missing commit after reset

[Modem, Bhanuprakash]

On 19-04-2024 03:39 pm, Joshi, Kunal1 wrote:
> 
> On 4/19/2024 3:23 PM, Modem, Bhanuprakash wrote:
>>
>> On 19-04-2024 12:09 pm, Kunal Joshi wrote:
>>> add missing commit after reset
>>>
>>> Cc: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
>>> Cc: Ankit Nautiyal <ankit.k.nautiyal at intel.com>
>>> Cc: Bhanuprakash Modem <bhanuprakash.modem at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kunal Joshi <kunal1.joshi at intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   tests/intel/kms_big_joiner.c | 1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/intel/kms_big_joiner.c b/tests/intel/kms_big_joiner.c
>>> index 88923be6b..f325a9839 100644
>>> --- a/tests/intel/kms_big_joiner.c
>>> +++ b/tests/intel/kms_big_joiner.c
>>> @@ -267,6 +267,7 @@ static void test_joiner_on_last_pipe(data_t 
>>> *data, bool force_joiner)
>>>         for (i = 0; i < len; i++) {
>>>           igt_display_reset(&data->display);
>>> +        igt_display_commit2(&data->display, COMMIT_ATOMIC);
>>
>> Do we really need this commit?
> 
> Hello Bhanu,
> 
> Yes we need this commit as below reason
> if output is already assigned to pipe D, then forcing big joiner is not 
> having any affect.

AFAIK, igt_display_reset() will clear associated pipe on all outputs. 
And we are associating last pipe (D) to the selected connector. The 
immediate commit will catch the bigjoiner constraint.

Still, I don't see any advantage of having this extra commit, am I 
missing anything?

- Bhanu

> 
> 
> Thanks and Regards
> Kunal Joshi
> 
>>
>>>           output = outputs[i];
>>>           igt_output_set_pipe(output, data->pipe_seq[data->n_pipes - 
>>> 1]);
>>>           mode = igt_output_get_mode(output);