Re: [PATCH i-g-t v3 03/11] tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking: update the outdated fbc status reasons

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@intel.com>]

On Thu, 30 Apr 2026, "Govindapillai, Vinod" <vinod.govindapillai@intel.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2026-04-30 at 09:07 +0530, Reddy Guddati, Santhosh wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 16-04-2026 14:55, Vinod Govindapillai wrote:
>> > Replace the fbc status check for "mode too large for compression"
>> > wchich
>> > is no longer being set by the driver with "plane size too big" and
>> > "surface size too big" fbc status checks.
>> > 
>> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Govindapillai <vinod.govindapillai@intel.com>
>> > ---
>> >   tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
>> >   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> > 
>> > diff --git a/tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
>> > b/tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
>> > index b01959d2c..5bdfbd105 100644
>> > --- a/tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
>> > +++ b/tests/intel/kms_frontbuffer_tracking.c
>> > @@ -1667,16 +1667,25 @@ static bool fbc_stride_not_supported(void)
>> >   
>> >   	intel_fbc_get_fbc_status(prim_mode_params.crtc,
>> > fbc_status, sizeof(fbc_status));
>> >   
>> > -	return strstr(fbc_status, "FBC disabled: framebuffer
>> > stride not supported\n");
>> > +	return strstr(fbc_status, "FBC disabled: stride not
>> > supported\n");
>> >   }
>> >   
>> > -static bool fbc_mode_too_large(void)
>> > +static bool fbc_plane_size_too_big(void)
>> >   {
>> >   	char fbc_status[128];
>> >   
>> >   	intel_fbc_get_fbc_status(prim_mode_params.crtc,
>> > fbc_status, sizeof(fbc_status));
>> >   
>> > -	return strstr(fbc_status, "FBC disabled: mode too large
>> > for compression\n");
>> > +	return strstr(fbc_status, "FBC disabled: plane size too
>> > big\n");
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static bool fbc_surface_size_too_big(void)
>> 
>> Same here, The next commit deletes all this code and replace all this
>> with intel_fbc_found_skip_reason(). Imho, we should squash this
>> commit.
>
> These are basically separate changes - one patch one logical change. In
> that way it would be easier to track/debug - bisect etc. Well.. this is
> how I have seen how Ville/Jani have been approaching the changes in the
> driver.. so following that approach. 

IMO always err on the side of small incremental changes. It's easier to
review, easier to find errors when bisecting, and (if needed) easier to
squash afterwards.

BR,
Jani.

>
> BR
> Vinod 
>

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel