From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [i-g-t PATCH 4/4] flip_test: switch to using
 monotonic timestamps
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:07:32 +0200
Message-ID: <1353593252.11370.5.camel@localhost>
References: <1353590706-1366-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>
	<1353590706-1366-5-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com>
	<20121122134602.GE6536@phenom.ffwll.local>
	<1353592253.11370.3.camel@localhost>
	<CAKMK7uF8v1S9oO+9-OKrxytk4y0Eb6K9DqkWrkB=yr=Jv4XVkA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org>
Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37])
	by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA4FE5C24
	for <intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>;
	Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:07:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uF8v1S9oO+9-OKrxytk4y0Eb6K9DqkWrkB=yr=Jv4XVkA@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/options/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/intel-gfx>
List-Post: <mailto:intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>
List-Help: <mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx>,
	<mailto:intel-gfx-request@lists.freedesktop.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces+gcfxdi-intel-gfx=m.gmane.org@lists.freedesktop.org
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>
Cc: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org

On Thu, 2012-11-22 at 15:04 +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 2:50 PM, Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> wrote:
> >> > +   enable_monotonic_timestamp(!(flags & TEST_TIMESTAMP_REAL));
> >>
> >> I don't follow why we should enable monotonic timestamps for some tests
> >> and not for some others? Shouldn't all tests with TEST_CHECK_TS just use
> >> the same clock the kernel uses?
> >
> > The idea was to also test the compatibility mode, where we get real
> > timestamps.
> 
> Oh, I've missed that you write back the desired value. I don't think
> we need to test the compat mode if it's not enabled, just test
> whatever mode is enabled. That way we also check whether the getcap
> interface works.

Ok, will do so. We have to wait though until DRM_CAP_TIMESTAMP_MONOTONIC
is added to libdrm. I've sent already a patch for this.

--Imre