[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v2] tests/kms_plane_lowres: Plane visibility after atomic modesets

[Kahola, Mika]

Hi,

Thanks for review comments!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Stone [mailto:daniel at fooishbar.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 5:02 PM
> To: Kahola, Mika <mika.kahola at intel.com>
> Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t v2] tests/kms_plane_lowres: Plane visibility after
> atomic modesets
> 
> Hi Mika,
> Thanks for respinning!
> 
> On 23 November 2016 at 11:49, Mika Kahola <mika.kahola at intel.com> wrote:
> > +bool kmstest_plane_visible(void)
> > +{
> > +       char tmp[256];
> > +       FILE *fid;
> > +       bool visible = false;
> > +       struct kmstest_resolution resolution;
> > +       const char *mode = "r";
> > +       int ret;
> > +
> > +       fid = igt_debugfs_fopen("i915_display_info", mode);
> > +
> > +       igt_assert(fid != NULL);
> 
> This, however, breaks non-Intel drivers: we declare DRIVER_ANY, but later
> assert that we can open this file. Maybe what would be better would be to have:
> void igt_assert_plane_visible(plane_id, should_be_visible) which would then
> internally do an igt_assert() on the result, or
> igt_skip() if that file is not present.
That's a good point. For non-Intel drivers 'i915_display_info' file doesn't exist. The test could skip if we cannot find the file but then the test would skip all non-Intel drivers. For non-Intel drivers, is there any way to check (debugfs files?) if the resolution change has succeeded and check the plane visibility?
> 
> Also, it seems kind of fragile, as it only looks for the first plane marked 'OVL'.
> What happens if we have multiple overlay planes?
I had an idea of testing with one plane only but it wouldn't be a major change to use as many OVL planes as we have available.
> 
> Regardless, I think it's very close, and am happy to test a v3 on non-i915. Thanks
> a lot for the rework!
I'll respin another round!

Cheers,
Mika
 
> 
> Cheers,
> Daniel