| Message ID | 1549037582-22449-6-git-send-email-anshuman.gupta@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | DC states igt tests patch series | expand |
On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:43:02PM +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > From: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@intel.com> > > Added new subtest for DC6 entry during DPMS on/off cycle. > During DPMS on/off cycle DC6 counter is incremented. > > v2: Renamed the subtest name. > v3: Rebased. > v4: Rebased and address review comment. > > Signed-off-by: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com> > --- > tests/pm_dc.c | 9 +++++++++ > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tests/pm_dc.c b/tests/pm_dc.c > index 05f1363..244665d 100644 > --- a/tests/pm_dc.c > +++ b/tests/pm_dc.c > @@ -241,6 +241,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC5); > } > > + igt_subtest("dc6-dpms") { > + /* Check DC6 counter is available for the platform. > + * Skip the test if counter is not available. > + */ > + read_dc_counter(data.drm_fd, CHECK_DC6); > + test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC6); > + //cleanup(&data); Some debugging left-over above. That makes me think, why do the PSR subtests do a modeset while the dpms ones don't? I think there is no reason to make them behave differently. > + } > + > igt_fixture { > close(data.debugfs_fd); > display_fini(&data); > -- > 2.7.4 >
On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 04:53:18PM +0200, Imre Deak wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, 2019 at 09:43:02PM +0530, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > > From: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@intel.com> > > > > Added new subtest for DC6 entry during DPMS on/off cycle. > > During DPMS on/off cycle DC6 counter is incremented. > > > > v2: Renamed the subtest name. > > v3: Rebased. > > v4: Rebased and address review comment. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jyoti Yadav <jyoti.r.yadav@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com> > > --- > > tests/pm_dc.c | 9 +++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/pm_dc.c b/tests/pm_dc.c > > index 05f1363..244665d 100644 > > --- a/tests/pm_dc.c > > +++ b/tests/pm_dc.c > > @@ -241,6 +241,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) > > test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC5); > > } > > > > + igt_subtest("dc6-dpms") { > > + /* Check DC6 counter is available for the platform. > > + * Skip the test if counter is not available. > > + */ > > + read_dc_counter(data.drm_fd, CHECK_DC6); > > + test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC6); > > + //cleanup(&data); It was not there in my original patch, it was my bad. > > Some debugging left-over above. That makes me think, why do the PSR > subtests do a modeset while the dpms ones don't? I think there is no > reason to make them behave differently. AFAIK PSR will get trigger after consecutive programmed idle frame. That requires at least a flip in test, that is the reason PSR requires a flip to test it, while DPMS can directly turn off the display. Please suggest if it can be done better. > > > + } > > + > > igt_fixture { > > close(data.debugfs_fd); > > display_fini(&data); > > -- > > 2.7.4 > >
diff --git a/tests/pm_dc.c b/tests/pm_dc.c index 05f1363..244665d 100644 --- a/tests/pm_dc.c +++ b/tests/pm_dc.c @@ -241,6 +241,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[]) test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC5); } + igt_subtest("dc6-dpms") { + /* Check DC6 counter is available for the platform. + * Skip the test if counter is not available. + */ + read_dc_counter(data.drm_fd, CHECK_DC6); + test_dc_state_dpms(&data, CHECK_DC6); + //cleanup(&data); + } + igt_fixture { close(data.debugfs_fd); display_fini(&data);