[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i-g-t: kms_plane_scaling: Enhanced scaling tests

[Srinivas, Vidya]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch [mailto:daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch] On Behalf Of
> Daniel Vetter
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 2:47 PM
> To: Srinivas, Vidya <vidya.srinivas at intel.com>
> Cc: intel-gfx <intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org>
> Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] i-g-t: kms_plane_scaling: Enhanced
> scaling tests
> 
> Somehow I forgot to send out my irc feedback to the m-l.
> 
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Vidya Srinivas
> <vidya.srinivas at intel.com> wrote:
> > +igt_main
> >  {
> >         data_t data = {};
> >
> > @@ -308,11 +765,26 @@ igt_simple_main
> >         data.drm_fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL);
> >         igt_require_pipe_crc(data.drm_fd);
> >         igt_display_init(&data.display, data.drm_fd);
> > +       igt_require(data.display.is_atomic);
> >         data.devid = intel_get_drm_devid(data.drm_fd);
> >
> >         data.num_scalers = intel_gen(data.devid) >= 9 ? 2 : 0;
> >
> > -       test_plane_scaling(&data);
> > -
> > +       //test_plane_scaling(&data);
> > +       igt_subtest_f("scaler_with_pixel_format") {
> > +               test_scaler_with_pixel_format(&data);
> > +       }
> > +       igt_subtest_f("scaler_with_rotation") {
> > +               test_scaler_with_rotation(&data);
> > +       }
> > +       igt_subtest_f("scaler_with_multiple_planes") {
> > +               test_scaler_with_multiple_planes(&data);
> > +       }
> > +       igt_subtest_f("scaler_with_clipping_clamping") {
> > +               test_scaler_with_clipping_clamping_scenario(&data);
> > +       }
> > +       igt_subtest_f("scaler_with_multi_pipe_plane") {
> > +               test_scaler_with_multi_pipe_plane(&data);
> > +       }
> 
> Commenting out the existing testcase and replacing it with new ones
> entirely, without explaining what's wrong with the old one, or removing it
> (we have git for source control, not comments), and how new tests are
> better isn't how we do things. Presumably the existing tests once worked, so
> the first step should be to fix that up first and explain why the changes are
> necessary. When this code was typed 2 years ago someone put some
> thought into it, throwing all that work away isn't good.
> 
> And _then_ (in follow-up patches) fix the gaps in test coverage.
> 
> Thanks, Daniel

Thank you. I think the explanation was missing. This test with format
will enhance the existing cases. I will work on these and re-submit the same.

Regards
Vidya

> 
> >         igt_display_fini(&data.display);  }
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Intel-gfx mailing list
> > Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Daniel Vetter
> Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
> +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch