Will work on that.
Dipam Turkar
On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 8:39 PM Maxime Ripard <mrip...@kernel.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2023 at 12:54:53AM +0530, Dipam Turkar wrote:
> > Introduce unit tests for the drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() function
> to ensure
> > the proper creation of DVI-I specific connector properties.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dipam Turkar <dipamt1...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> > index c66aa2dc8d9d..9ac1fd32c579 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> > @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <drm/drm_connector.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_device.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_drv.h>
> > +#include <drm/drm_kunit_helpers.h>
> >
> > #include <kunit/test.h>
> >
> > @@ -58,6 +61,30 @@ static void
> drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_truncated(struct kunit *test)
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test, ret, 0);
> > };
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Test that drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties() succeeds and
> > + * DVI-I subconnector and select subconectors properties have
> > + * been created.
> > + */
> > +static void drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + struct drm_device *drm;
> > + struct device *dev;
> > +
> > + dev = drm_kunit_helper_alloc_device(test);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, dev);
> > +
> > + drm = __drm_kunit_helper_alloc_drm_device(test, dev, sizeof(*drm),
> 0, DRIVER_MODESET);
> > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, drm);
> > +
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> drm->mode_config.dvi_i_select_subconnector_property);
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test,
> drm->mode_config.dvi_i_subconnector_property);
> > +
> > + // Expect the function to return 0 if called twice.
>
> This is not the proper comment format
>
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(drm), 0);
>
> This should be in a separate test, with a separate description. We want
> to test two things: that the function works well, and that the function
> still works if we call it a second time.
>
> > +}
> > +
> > static struct kunit_case drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests[] = {
> > KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid,
> > drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_gen_params),
> > @@ -70,7 +97,18 @@ static struct kunit_suite
> drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite = {
> > .test_cases = drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests,
> > };
>
> The test should be next to the test suite definition
>
> > +static struct kunit_case drm_connector_tests[] = {
> > + KUNIT_CASE(drm_test_mode_create_dvi_i_properties),
> > + { }
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct kunit_suite drm_connector_test_suite = {
> > + .name = "drm_connector",
>
> That's too generic, the test suite is only about
> drm_mode_create_dvi_i_properties(), not drm_connector in general.
>
> > + .test_cases = drm_connector_tests,
> > +};
> > +
> > kunit_test_suite(drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite);
> > +kunit_test_suite(drm_connector_test_suite);
>
> kunit_test_suites
>
> Maxime
>
