From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga18.intel.com (mga18.intel.com [134.134.136.126]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 280F989F6B for ; Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:52:33 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2021 14:53:00 +0200 From: Petri Latvala Message-ID: References: <20210219172738.263820-1-jcline@redhat.com> <20210305164253.11788-1-jcline@redhat.com> <20210305164253.11788-2-jcline@redhat.com> <6ab3fa6c35e24f8b8f8cbcdfd271dfb7@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6ab3fa6c35e24f8b8f8cbcdfd271dfb7@intel.com> 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: "Shankar, Uma" Cc: "igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" List-ID: On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 02:48:32PM +0200, Shankar, Uma wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Latvala, Petri > > Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:32 PM > > To: Jeremy Cline > > Cc: Sharma, Swati2 ; Maarten Lankhorst > > ; igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org; Shankar, Uma > > > > Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v2 1/2] kms_hdr: Skip HDR tests on pre-Kaby Lake > > Intel devices > > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 10:06:59AM -0500, Jeremy Cline wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 02:53:39PM +0200, Petri Latvala wrote: > > > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 06:11:09PM +0530, Sharma, Swati2 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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/grap > > > > > > > hics/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?testfilte > > > > > r=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 > > > > > > > > What I meant is the fix in patch 2, removing the removal of the > > > > primary plane, which was done because of a HSW limitation. Patch 1 > > > > (this thread) is then making sure HSW is unaffected by a spurious > > > > failure. Sorry for not being clear when pulling more CCs. > > > > > > > > > > There are definitely finer-grain ways to do this, but this "works" so > > > I figured it'd be good to start here and have a discussion about it. > > > > > > One option would be to just wrap the plane-removal call in a device > > > check. Another would be to try and find a plane size that meets > > > whatever the scaling requirements are for hsw (assuming there's > > > overlap between the conflicting requirements of hardware). > > > > > > I don't have a strong opinion about where the checks happen, it seems > > > like a trade-off between in-test complexity and the breadth of the > > > test matrix, and I can't say how useful it is to make sure the MAX_BPC > > > interface works on a specific generation of hardware. I'm happy to do > > > either of those options (or another option I've not considered), > > > whatever you folks think is the best trade-off. > > > > > > Checked how HSW actually behaves with this and > > > > https://intel-gfx-ci.01.org/tree/drm-tip/TrybotIGT_300/shard- > > hsw4/igt@kms_hdr@bpc-switch.html > > > > Swati, what's your opinion? if (amdgpudevice) around the plane removal or what's > > best here? > > Hi Petri, > I feel limiting it to amdgpudevice seems a safer and easier route here without disturbing the legacy behavior. Thanks, let's go with that then. Jeremy, see above. -- Petri Latvala _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev