Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v6 1/8] kms_content_protection: Tests are defined by flags

[Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>]

On 2019-05-06 at 11:31:28 +0530, Shankar, Uma wrote:
> 
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: igt-dev [mailto:igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf Of
> >Ramalingam C
> >Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2019 6:46 PM
> >To: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Vetter, Daniel <daniel.vetter@intel.com>; Hiler,
> >Arkadiusz <arkadiusz.hiler@intel.com>
> >Subject: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v6 1/8] kms_content_protection: Tests are defined by
> >flags
> >
> >Considering increase of subtests for kms_content_protection, tests are defined
> >through flags.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>
> >Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> >---
> > tests/kms_content_protection.c | 19 +++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/tests/kms_content_protection.c b/tests/kms_content_protection.c index
> >ae6ab497ea21..051a3dfec5ba 100644
> >--- a/tests/kms_content_protection.c
> >+++ b/tests/kms_content_protection.c
> >@@ -34,8 +34,11 @@ struct data {
> > 	int drm_fd;
> > 	igt_display_t display;
> > 	struct igt_fb red, green;
> >+	unsigned int cp_tests;
> > } data;
> >
> >+#define CP_DPMS					(1 << 0)
> >+
> > #define CP_UNDESIRED				0
> > #define CP_DESIRED				1
> > #define CP_ENABLED				2
> >@@ -240,8 +243,7 @@ static void test_cp_lic(igt_output_t *output)  }
> >
> > static void test_content_protection_on_output(igt_output_t *output,
> >-					      enum igt_commit_style s,
> >-					      bool dpms_test)
> >+					      enum igt_commit_style s)
> > {
> > 	igt_display_t *display = &data.display;
> > 	igt_plane_t *primary;
> >@@ -265,7 +267,7 @@ static void test_content_protection_on_output(igt_output_t
> >*output,
> > 		test_cp_enable_with_retry(output, s, 3);
> > 		test_cp_lic(output);
> >
> >-		if (dpms_test) {
> >+		if (data.cp_tests & CP_DPMS) {
> > 			igt_pipe_set_prop_value(display, pipe,
> > 						IGT_CRTC_ACTIVE, 0);
> > 			igt_display_commit2(display, s);
> >@@ -324,7 +326,7 @@ static bool sink_hdcp_capable(igt_output_t *output)
> >
> >
> > static void
> >-test_content_protection(enum igt_commit_style s, bool dpms_test)
> >+test_content_protection(enum igt_commit_style s)
> > {
> > 	igt_display_t *display = &data.display;
> > 	igt_output_t *output;
> >@@ -341,7 +343,7 @@ test_content_protection(enum igt_commit_style s, bool
> >dpms_test)
> > 			continue;
> > 		}
> >
> >-		test_content_protection_on_output(output, s, dpms_test);
> >+		test_content_protection_on_output(output, s);
> > 		valid_tests++;
> > 	}
> >
> >@@ -359,16 +361,17 @@ igt_main
> > 	}
> >
> > 	igt_subtest("legacy")
> >-		test_content_protection(COMMIT_LEGACY, false);
> >+		test_content_protection(COMMIT_LEGACY);
> >
> > 	igt_subtest("atomic") {
> > 		igt_require(data.display.is_atomic);
> >-		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC, false);
> >+		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC);
> > 	}
> >
> > 	igt_subtest("atomic-dpms") {
> > 		igt_require(data.display.is_atomic);
> >-		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC, true);
> >+		data.cp_tests = CP_DPMS;
> 
> Not quite sure, but should we not reset this flag after the test so that data_cp.tests
> have a clean slate for any other subtest to be executed later.

Before the next test we are always assigning the required flags than
editing the exiting one. So resetting the flag is not required.

-Ram
> 
> 
> >+		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC);
> > 	}
> >
> > 	igt_fixture
> >--
> >2.19.1
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >igt-dev mailing list
> >igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
> >https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev
_______________________________________________
igt-dev mailing list
igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev