From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C6B3089C21 for ; Mon, 8 Mar 2021 12:41:31 +0000 (UTC) References: <20210219172738.263820-1-jcline@redhat.com> <20210305164253.11788-1-jcline@redhat.com> <20210305164253.11788-2-jcline@redhat.com> From: "Sharma, Swati2" Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2021 18:11:09 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2 1/2] kms_hdr: Skip HDR tests on pre-Kaby Lake Intel devices List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Petri Latvala , Jeremy Cline , Maarten Lankhorst Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org List-ID: On 08-Mar-21 2:17 PM, Petri Latvala wrote: > On Fri, Mar 05, 2021 at 11:42:52AM -0500, Jeremy Cline wrote: >> According to the Intel documentation[0] I could find, HDR support is >> only in Kaby Lake+. Skip tests in kms_hdr if the hardware doesn't >> support HDR. >> >> [0] https://www.intel.com/content/dam/support/us/en/documents/graphics/HDR_Intel_Graphics_TechWhitePaper.pdf >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Cline > > > While that might be true, strictly speaking IGT tests are not testing > the HW capabilities but the kernel interfaces. The difference is often > only interesting for nitpicking. > > However, in this case a good argument can be made either way, with > what the correct behaviour with setting the "max bpc" property when > the HW doesn't support HDR _output_ should be. IGT tests should be > written the way one would expect "real" userspace to behave; does the > documented kernel interface require userspace to detect the device id > somehow? The connector property is there so one would assume setting > it should work and do something. > > A good argument can also be made that even though we're testing "just > the interface", we (Intel) should have a separate test that requires > actual HW support... > > Swati, Maarten, thoughts on this? Are we even testing the right things > for i915 at all? Are we able to express the HW requirement for HDR > with something other than comparing devid? Should we? (If we should > not, please suggest a better way to get around the issue being fixed > here) There are 2 types of tests which are being validated in kms_hdr (i) bpc switch (ii) hdr metadata And both these tests will skip on platforms which doesn't support respective connector properties (MAX_BPC, HDR_OUTPUT_METADATA resp). These tests are independent of platforms on which they are being tested. This can be validated from the link below: https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/shards-all.html?testfilter=kms_hdr where you can see platforms which doesn't support either max_bpc or hdr_metadata connector properties; tests are being skipped. And I don't think anything is being fixed here, with gen specific check even bpc switch tests cases won't get executed. MAX_BPC is supported by platforms prior to gen9 aswell. But like said HDR is supported is gen9+; so we can lose coverage of bpc switch test cases on non-HDR platforms. IMO there is no need to express HW requirement for HDR; this is already being handled smoothly through connector properties. > > -- ~Swati Sharma _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev