Re: [PATCH i-g-t 0/5] New pipe level color management tests V5

[Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>]

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:16:08PM +0000, Lionel Landwerlin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> This series enables testing pipe level color management using kernel patches
> from this serie :
> 
> https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/2720/
> 
> Most of the tests use pipe CRCs to check the results by comparing the output
> with the expected output drawn using cairo.

These tests look good.  The only thing that might be worth adding is a
test that intermixes the legacy gamma ioctl with full color management
use.  I believe invoking the legacy ioctl should clear the degamma and
CTM, right?  It might be worth checking that that actually happens.

Also, there was one misplaced patch hunk that I called out on patch 2/3.

Aside from the final IGT tweaks, I think we're pretty close to merging.
Here are the final opens I see:

 * I expect we'll just merge this whole thing through the Intel tree,
   even though patch #3 adds the properties, structures, and helpers to
   the DRM core, so we need to get an okay from airlied.  Dave, do you
   have any concerns about this?

 * I know the ChromeOS guys have been reviewing this series
   independently on their end and putting together the userspace (open
   source) which will be using this.  We should get someone to formally
   Ack this on their behalf; I think Rob Bradford has been working with
   them; adding him to the Cc list to see if he can provide the Ack.

 * I'm not sure if I ever saw a CI report for your final iteration.  I
   may have just missed the email, or it may have never come out due to
   the temporary FDO downtime or the CI outage last week.  Could you
   provide a pointer to the results (with false positives justified with
   bugzilla entries), or resubmit again for CI if necessary?

 * I'm still a little bit uncomfortable that we (the general DRM
   community) never really came to a consensus on the whole
   DRM_MODE_PROP_ATOMIC vs not question (both for this patchset and as a
   general guideline going forward with similar features).  Emil had a
   good argument that if we make something atomic-only to start with,
   it's trivial to change in the future if we decide we actually want to
   make use of it with a non-atomic userspace; on the other hand, if we
   make it unrestricted on day one, that's a change we can't reverse
   down the line since it becomes part of the ABI.  However nobody
   seemed to really care very strongly either way during the discussion
   on the color management series, so I'm just putting this here as a
   final warning in case anyone really wants to see it changed before
   merging.

Thanks!


Matt


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Lionel
> 
> Lionel Landwerlin (5):
>   lib: kms: add crtc_id to igt_pipe_t
>   lib: kms: add helpers for color management properties on pipes
>   lib: fb: add igt_paint_color_gradient_range
>   lib: add crc comparison function without an assert
>   tests/kms_color: New test for pipe level color management
> 
>  lib/igt_debugfs.c      |   17 +
>  lib/igt_debugfs.h      |    1 +
>  lib/igt_fb.c           |   34 ++
>  lib/igt_fb.h           |    3 +
>  lib/igt_kms.c          |   75 ++++
>  lib/igt_kms.h          |   18 +-
>  tests/Makefile.sources |    1 +
>  tests/kms_pipe_color.c | 1045 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  8 files changed, 1193 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 tests/kms_pipe_color.c
> 
> --
> 2.7.0
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

-- 
Matt Roper
Graphics Software Engineer
IoTG Platform Enabling & Development
Intel Corporation
(916) 356-2795
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx