Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v6 2/8] kms_content_protection: Link Integrity Check subtest

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

On 2019-05-06 at 11:37:25 +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 2/8] kms_content_protection: Link Integrity Check
> >subtest
> >
> >Existing Link integrity check test is moved into dedicated subtest.
> >This helps to reduced the execution time of other tests by removing the repeated Link
> 
> s/reduced/reduce
Will fix the Typo.

> 
> >integrity check on every other tests.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Ramalingam C <ramalingam.c@intel.com>
> >Acked-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
> >---
> > tests/kms_content_protection.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/tests/kms_content_protection.c b/tests/kms_content_protection.c index
> >051a3dfec5ba..e3bb39f42ada 100644
> >--- a/tests/kms_content_protection.c
> >+++ b/tests/kms_content_protection.c
> >@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ struct data {
> > } data;
> >
> > #define CP_DPMS					(1 << 0)
> >+#define CP_LIC					(1 << 1)
> >
> > #define CP_UNDESIRED				0
> > #define CP_DESIRED				1
> >@@ -265,7 +266,9 @@ static void test_content_protection_on_output(igt_output_t
> >*output,
> >
> > 		modeset_with_fb(pipe, output, s);
> > 		test_cp_enable_with_retry(output, s, 3);
> >-		test_cp_lic(output);
> >+
> >+		if (data.cp_tests & CP_LIC)
> >+			test_cp_lic(output);
> >
> > 		if (data.cp_tests & CP_DPMS) {
> > 			igt_pipe_set_prop_value(display, pipe, @@ -374,6 +377,12
> >@@ igt_main
> > 		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC);
> > 	}
> >
> >+	igt_subtest("LIC") {
> >+		igt_require(data.display.is_atomic);
> >+		data.cp_tests = CP_LIC;
> >+		test_content_protection(COMMIT_ATOMIC);
> >+	}
> 
> Same comment as on earlier patch, should we not reset this flag after test.
Resetting the flag is not required as the next subtest is assigning the
required flag than editing it.

-Ram
> 
> >+
> > 	igt_fixture
> > 		igt_display_fini(&data.display);
> > }
> >--
> >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