Hey, Op 06-06-17 om 10:29 schreef Tvrtko Ursulin: > > On 06/06/2017 09:06, Maarten Lankhorst wrote: >> Op 05-04-17 om 15:49 schreef Ville Syrjälä: >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:23:18PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote: >>>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 09:00:53PM +0300, [email protected] >>>> wrote: >>>>> From: Ville Syrjälä <[email protected]> >>>>> >>>>> I figured it's about time I fix what I broke with my fb offset stuff. >>>>> I've posted the scaler thing before, but the watermark and fbc stuff >>>>> is new. >>>>> >>>>> Based on some quick tests the WM fixes seem effective. Or at least >>>>> underruns seemed to disappear when I was running xonotic with 90/270 >>>>> degree rotation. >>>> The key question for me is would we be able to detect any of the errors >>>> in igt? How can we improve our testing? >>> The rotation test definitely would need some love. It fails to detect >>> these problems because it scans out a square image. Making it non-square >>> would at least catch the use of the scaler when it shouldn't be used. >>> >>> Detecting the watermark breakage is less clear. I suppose making the >>> plane have a very wide or very tall aspect ratio might help induce >>> underruns with the broken wm code. >>> >>> Another thing that may or may not be missing from the test is panning. >>> I'd also like to test scaling, but sadly our hardware makes that >>> rather hard by not allowing us to force nearest and/or linear filtering, >>> and bspec doesn't actually document what kind of algorithm the hardware >>> uses for the different filter modes. >>> >> Agreed, the whole series is useful but until we have some tests we may as >> well not commit it. Nothing prevents it from being broken again in the next >> commit. :( > > In case tests hit a stumbling blocks/delays, I would appreciate if this got > reviewed and merged soonish. As it stands I've been applying (and > occasionally forgetting to apply) patches locally since September. > > And FWIW I would report if it got re-broken, since I'm using monitors in > portrait, and like to run recent drm-tip to help catch issues missed > elsewhere. > >> I'll take a look and see if I can make kms_rotation_crc break without this >> test. > > Would also need to upgrade the test to basic, or count on extended runs > getting attention soon? Maybe?
I've pushed the fixed test. Managed to test that the scaler is enabled incorrectly and the WM underruns. Reviewed-by: Maarten Lankhorst <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
