| Message ID | 20230825160725.12861-4-gcarlos@disroot.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Increase coverage on drm_framebuffer.c | expand |
Hi Carlos, On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote: > Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with > modifier on a device that doesn't support it. > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@disroot.org> > --- > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c > index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c > @@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c > KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, drm_framebuffer_create_cases, > drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc); > > +/* > + * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except that it > + * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, covering > + * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without the > + * device really supporting it. > + */ > +static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct kunit *test) > +{ > + struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv; > + struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev; > + int buffer_created = 0; > + > + /* A valid cmd with modifier */ > + struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = { > + .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT, > + .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 }, > + .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 }, > + .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS, > + }; > + > + mock->private = &buffer_created; > + dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1; > + > + drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, NULL); > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created); > +} > + > static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = { > + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported), Could we preserve alphabetical order? Best Regards, - Maíra > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params), > { } > };
Hi Maíra, On 8/26/23 10:58, Maíra Canal wrote: > Hi Carlos, > > On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote: >> Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with >> modifier on a device that doesn't support it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@disroot.org> >> --- >> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >> index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >> @@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const >> struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c >> KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, >> drm_framebuffer_create_cases, >> drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc); >> +/* >> + * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except >> that it >> + * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, >> covering >> + * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without >> the >> + * device really supporting it. >> + */ >> +static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct >> kunit *test) >> +{ >> + struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv; >> + struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev; >> + int buffer_created = 0; >> + >> + /* A valid cmd with modifier */ >> + struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = { >> + .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT, >> + .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 }, >> + .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * >> MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 }, >> + .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS, >> + }; >> + >> + mock->private = &buffer_created; >> + dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1; >> + >> + drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, NULL); >> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created); >> +} >> + >> static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = { >> + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported), > > Could we preserve alphabetical order? > I've see a lot of other tests files with this ordered by every KUNIT_CASE() coming before KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(), with each set ordered among themselves. Did younoticed that or are you suggesting ordering it even so? Or maybe you're referring about another unordered thing that I didn't noticed? Thanks, Carlos > Best Regards, > - Maíra > >> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, >> drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params), >> { } >> };
Hi Carlos, On 9/4/23 13:57, Carlos wrote: > Hi Maíra, > > On 8/26/23 10:58, Maíra Canal wrote: >> Hi Carlos, >> >> On 8/25/23 13:07, Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho wrote: >>> Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with >>> modifier on a device that doesn't support it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@disroot.org> >>> --- >>> drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >>> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >>> index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c >>> @@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const >>> struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c >>> KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, >>> drm_framebuffer_create_cases, >>> drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc); >>> +/* >>> + * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except >>> that it >>> + * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, >>> covering >>> + * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without >>> the >>> + * device really supporting it. >>> + */ >>> +static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct >>> kunit *test) >>> +{ >>> + struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv; >>> + struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev; >>> + int buffer_created = 0; >>> + >>> + /* A valid cmd with modifier */ >>> + struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = { >>> + .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT, >>> + .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 }, >>> + .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * >>> MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 }, >>> + .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS, >>> + }; >>> + >>> + mock->private = &buffer_created; >>> + dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1; >>> + >>> + drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, NULL); >>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created); >>> +} >>> + >>> static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = { >>> + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported), >> >> Could we preserve alphabetical order? >> > I've see a lot of other tests files with this ordered by every KUNIT_CASE() > coming before KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(), with each set ordered among themselves. > Did younoticed that or are you suggesting ordering it even so? Or maybe > you're referring about another unordered thing that I didn't noticed? Actually, I was suggesting to keep the alphabetical order related to the tests naming. So, drm_test_framebuffer_create would come ahead of drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported. Best Regards, - Maíra > > Thanks, > Carlos > >> Best Regards, >> - Maíra >> >>> KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, >>> drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params), >>> { } >>> };
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c index aeaf2331f9cc..b20871e88995 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c @@ -396,7 +396,35 @@ static void drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc(const struct drm_framebuffer_test *t, c KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_framebuffer_create, drm_framebuffer_create_cases, drm_framebuffer_test_to_desc); +/* + * This test is very similar to drm_test_framebuffer_create, except that it + * set mock->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported member to 1, covering + * the case of trying to create a framebuffer with modifiers without the + * device really supporting it. + */ +static void drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported(struct kunit *test) +{ + struct drm_mock *mock = test->priv; + struct drm_device *dev = &mock->dev; + int buffer_created = 0; + + /* A valid cmd with modifier */ + struct drm_mode_fb_cmd2 cmd = { + .width = MAX_WIDTH, .height = MAX_HEIGHT, + .pixel_format = DRM_FORMAT_ABGR8888, .handles = { 1, 0, 0 }, + .offsets = { UINT_MAX / 2, 0, 0 }, .pitches = { 4 * MAX_WIDTH, 0, 0 }, + .flags = DRM_MODE_FB_MODIFIERS, + }; + + mock->private = &buffer_created; + dev->mode_config.fb_modifiers_not_supported = 1; + + drm_internal_framebuffer_create(dev, &cmd, NULL); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, buffer_created); +} + static struct kunit_case drm_framebuffer_tests[] = { + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_framebuffer_modifiers_not_supported), KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_framebuffer_create, drm_framebuffer_create_gen_params), { } };
Introduce a test to cover the creation of framebuffer with modifier on a device that doesn't support it. Signed-off-by: Carlos Eduardo Gallo Filho <gcarlos@disroot.org> --- drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_framebuffer_test.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)