On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:31:05AM -0300, Paulo Zanoni wrote: > From: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]> > > We may not be perfect, but if we don't even test, we will probably > only get worse over time. > > The function called makes sure we restore whatever was the original > FBC parameter when we exit the test, so this should not affect the > other tests. > > Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]> > --- > tests/kms_fbc_crc.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c > index 37221ac..d964224 100644 > --- a/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c > +++ b/tests/kms_fbc_crc.c > @@ -559,10 +559,10 @@ igt_main > igt_assert_lt(0, fread(buf, 1, sizeof(buf), status)); > fclose(status); > buf[sizeof(buf) - 1] = '\0'; > - igt_require_f(!strstr(buf, "unsupported on this chipset") && > - !strstr(buf, "disabled per module param") && > - !strstr(buf, "disabled per chip default"), > - "FBC not supported/enabled\n"); > + igt_require_f(!strstr(buf, "unsupported on this chipset"), > + "FBC not supported\n"); > + > + igt_set_module_param_int("enable_fbc", 1);
This is risky since on older chips fbc is known to pretty much insta-kill the box. Imo we should have a gen6+ here at least (that's roughly the point where the hw workarounds start to sound less scary). Trying to enable this on older platforms just isn't worth it imo. -Daniel > > data.bufmgr = drm_intel_bufmgr_gem_init(data.drm_fd, 4096); > igt_assert(data.bufmgr); > -- > 2.1.4 > > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
