From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D386DC3DA49 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927DA10E70C; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: gabe.freedesktop.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=ffwll.ch header.i=@ffwll.ch header.b="XohkOzQJ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from mail-wm1-f49.google.com (mail-wm1-f49.google.com [209.85.128.49]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D8D4210E030 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 10:01:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-426719e2efeso184645e9.0 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:01:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ffwll.ch; s=google; t=1721296860; x=1721901660; darn=lists.freedesktop.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=M9Ddiz5aWhESVWY91Rre4Ei8dXe0hxyGQTvWoxqtFTY=; b=XohkOzQJpvK/a7ErT4lQM0Z/e2EVGsJmo9GLkzXnyUy9fjpS3/IMsC/Csl8RIUpfyl a88wqMiOi7LzKtGqw6bCbmQGyj5kmc0TY8KiXff1NGePqdIPMfkQg8+nmYdmBMSDIzXW s5ofXzJUriGoW2V35wwvN8uE8G1oNZQ0HN2DU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721296860; x=1721901660; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=M9Ddiz5aWhESVWY91Rre4Ei8dXe0hxyGQTvWoxqtFTY=; b=Dvzn20DyUtQm6+BFaybFRBdnys0v/bqipkiTPkQp14r6NrBzTW/nBw4E6V1V1faqzc wSgRDLjjjrxj8f870GVw4e2o761+ngdIAcDtwtw6PI67pZWBSO9gksQcdi7ltyRfuGXI b3VxVaBVILRITDqnNnRDmxw0/uXifXALnbHxkRSpLRorVf6gJYBxPCkSJhkeulzD4Pi/ u3ehofNkk8tphkbIvppm4oH8BY0WX2qmmIxnmI+2mZm1h/mOp8VlijHln6x2/rosLvHy 4KwUXHq8Vh41f8aGciiD4osoLz7kUwtygUC+FqyB4hP5C+G2ldqX/kKRRUqShpvI3AMs pMbw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwmOXHS10llR9ppTa7beHzJ5sLkEUSM7VDVjaH/gKA78QAvT2qG 0HpFq/kwVPa3blGcS2RcHPKOvaszp/wMt8eJ/QTXCnxvIdVk4UnMZBYKQJv0Ck4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHzEUiUnYGCAJIso35npHep3v54So9cJ/+y6XB1JcYuLcfp0jCqBRHV49gSRCckOLeALkE6Hg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:1d04:b0:426:6fc0:5910 with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-427d2a63ca3mr1851355e9.1.1721296860078; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phenom.ffwll.local ([2a02:168:57f4:0:efd0:b9e5:5ae6:c2fa]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5b1f17b1804b1-427d2b1815esm4529165e9.13.2024.07.18.03.00.59 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 18 Jul 2024 03:00:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:00:57 +0200 From: Daniel Vetter To: Dmitry Baryshkov Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, Maxime Ripard , Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: [PATCH i-g-t] tests/kms_properties: drop immutability checks Message-ID: References: <20240717143947.28437-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20240717143947.28437-1-dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> X-Operating-System: Linux phenom 6.9.7-amd64 X-BeenThere: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Development mailing list for IGT GPU Tools List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 05:39:47PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > Following the discussion on IRC, it is actually an error to require that > properties that can not be chaged are marked as immutable. > > First of all, it creates inconsistent uAPI. Some drivers might have an > immutable property, while others will have it mutable. Yes, there are > known examples for such behaviour (e.g. zpos), but they are clearly > documented in this way. > > Second, by the nature of the flag, the DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE defines > more of the 'direction' of the property (whether it is set by the kernel > or it is expected to be set by the userspace) rather than simply states > that there is no way for the userspace to change the property. > > Drop the single-value-is-immutable tests. > > Fixes: 29ae12bd764e ("tests/kms_properties: Validate properties harder") > Cc: Ville Syrjälä > Link: https://oftc.irclog.whitequark.org/dri-devel/2024-07-16#33374622 > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov Makes sense, but we might drop some test coverage for the properties where we _do_ want the single value to be immutable. Like zpos. So I think at least a cursory audit of existing properties would be good, checking that the kerneldoc is accurate and then maybe limiting these checks here to properties which are documented to have this behaviour? I know that's a bunch more work, but I fear if we just drop this we only move from one a bit confusing state of the uapi to another one, without real improvements. Ofc if all the compositor folks tell me that this doesn't matter anyway, I'll shut up :-) Cheers, Sima > --- > tests/kms_properties.c | 8 -------- > 1 file changed, 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/kms_properties.c b/tests/kms_properties.c > index c0e5be1c90a8..c41b88bef76f 100644 > --- a/tests/kms_properties.c > +++ b/tests/kms_properties.c > @@ -421,11 +421,9 @@ static void validate_range_prop(const struct drm_mode_get_property *prop, > { > const uint64_t *values = from_user_pointer(prop->values_ptr); > bool is_unsigned = prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_RANGE; > - bool immutable = prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE; > > igt_assert_eq(prop->count_values, 2); > igt_assert_eq(prop->count_enum_blobs, 0); > - igt_assert(values[0] != values[1] || immutable); > > if (is_unsigned) { > igt_assert_lte_u64(values[0], values[1]); > @@ -461,12 +459,10 @@ static void validate_enum_prop(const struct drm_mode_get_property *prop, > uint64_t value) > { > const uint64_t *values = from_user_pointer(prop->values_ptr); > - bool immutable = prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE; > int i; > > igt_assert_lte(1, prop->count_values); > igt_assert_eq(prop->count_enum_blobs, prop->count_values); > - igt_assert(prop->count_values != 1 || immutable); > > for (i = 0; i < prop->count_values; i++) { > if (value == values[i]) > @@ -481,12 +477,10 @@ static void validate_bitmask_prop(const struct drm_mode_get_property *prop, > uint64_t value) > { > const uint64_t *values = from_user_pointer(prop->values_ptr); > - bool immutable = prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE; > uint64_t mask = 0; > > igt_assert_lte(1, prop->count_values); > igt_assert_eq(prop->count_enum_blobs, prop->count_values); > - igt_assert(prop->count_values != 1 || immutable); > > for (int i = 0; i < prop->count_values; i++) { > igt_assert_lte_u64(values[i], 63); > @@ -535,7 +529,6 @@ static void validate_object_prop(int fd, > uint64_t value) > { > const uint64_t *values = from_user_pointer(prop->values_ptr); > - bool immutable = prop->flags & DRM_MODE_PROP_IMMUTABLE; > struct drm_mode_crtc crtc; > struct drm_mode_fb_cmd fb; > > @@ -543,7 +536,6 @@ static void validate_object_prop(int fd, > igt_assert_eq(prop->count_enum_blobs, 0); > > igt_assert_lte_u64(value, 0xffffffff); > - igt_assert(!immutable || value != 0); > > switch (values[0]) { > case DRM_MODE_OBJECT_CRTC: > -- > 2.43.0 > -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation http://blog.ffwll.ch