[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] tests/kms_fbc_crc: Fill entire target framebuffer to adds crc FIXMES

[Ville Syrjälä]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:03:55AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 09:35:10AM +0200, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 06:47:21PM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote:
> > > 2015-03-25 17:15 GMT-03:00 Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch>:
> > > > And use the same colors for both flip and fills so that we can reuse
> > > > crcs. Some details:
> > > > - For the flip_and_foo tests flip twice so that we again start with
> > > >   the black framebuffer and hence have a real change when painting it
> > > >   white.
> > > 
> > > But you don't really check the CRC after the first flip, so if it's
> > > completely ignored by the display engine, we won't know. That still
> > > looks like a regression from the previous code we had.
> > > 
> > > > - The upload for the rendercopy source isn't fast, but hey I'm lazy.
> > > 
> > > You're also changing everything form single-pixel write to full-fb
> > > write, which is not necessarily a bad thing (although slower), but
> > > could at least be on the changelog.
> > 
> > The reason I riginally used very small operations was to make sure the
> > hardware catches precicesly such small operations. If we just blast
> > away the entire thing we can't tell if the hardware would even notice
> > a small change. Although since hardware tracking was declared to be
> > the evil that may not matter so much, except people still want to use
> > the GTT tracking for some reason.
> 
> We're still using the gtt cpu write tracking, which is the only hw
> tracking bit that works per-line-block. I guess if we see that one fail we
> can add a specific testcase for the pattern, but for now I kinda trust the
> hw in that regard actually. At least I haven't seen bugs like that.

We don't even test panning, which is where I think the gtt tracking code
is broken. And you can't catch bugs like that if you paint the entire
fb.

-- 
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC