Re: [PATCH v8 12/24] drm/connector: Add a function to lookup a TV mode by its name

["Maíra Canal" <mairacanal@riseup.net>]

Hi Maxime,

On 11/10/22 08:07, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> As part of the command line parsing rework coming in the next patches,
> we'll need to lookup drm_connector_tv_mode values by their name, already
> defined in drm_tv_mode_enum_list.
> 
> In order to avoid any code duplication, let's do a function that will
> perform a lookup of a TV mode name and return its value.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Noralf Trønnes <noralf@tronnes.org>
> Tested-by: Mateusz Kwiatkowski <kfyatek+publicgit@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech>
> 
> ---
> Changes in v7:
> - Add kunit tests
> ---
>  drivers/gpu/drm/drm_connector.c            | 24 ++++++++
>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/Makefile             |  1 +
>  drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/drm/drm_connector.h                |  2 +
>  4 files changed, 117 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..f2272b9df211
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_connector_test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * Kunit test for drm_modes functions
> + */
> +
> +#include <drm/drm_connector.h>
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +
> +struct drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test {
> +	const char *name;
> +	enum drm_connector_tv_mode expected_mode;
> +};
> +
> +#define TV_MODE_NAME(_name, _mode)		\
> +	{					\
> +		.name = _name,			\
> +		.expected_mode = _mode,		\
> +	}
> +
> +static void drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	const struct drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test *params = test->param_value;
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test,
> +			drm_get_tv_mode_from_name(params->name, strlen(params->name)),
> +			params->expected_mode);
> +}
> +
> +static const
> +struct drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_tests[] = {
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("NTSC", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_NTSC),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("NTSC-443", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_NTSC_443),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("NTSC-J", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_NTSC_J),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("PAL", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_PAL),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("PAL-M", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_PAL_M),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("PAL-N", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_PAL_N),
> +	TV_MODE_NAME("SECAM", DRM_MODE_TV_MODE_SECAM),
> +};
> +
> +static void
> +drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_desc(const struct drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test *t,
> +				     char *desc)
> +{
> +	sprintf(desc, "%s", t->name);
> +}

I believe that it should be a blank line here for code style.

> +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid,
> +		  drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_tests,
> +		  drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_desc);
> +
> +static void drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	const char *name = *(const char **)test->param_value;
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_LT(test,
> +			drm_get_tv_mode_from_name(name, strlen(name)),
> +			0);
> +}
> +
> +static const
> +char *drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid_tests[] = {
> +	/* Truncated */
> +	"NTS",
> +};

Considering that there is only one invalid test, is there a particular
reason to parametrize this test?

> +
> +static void
> +drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid_desc(const char **name, char *desc)
> +{
> +	sprintf(desc, "%s", *name);
> +}
> +KUNIT_ARRAY_PARAM(drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid,
> +		  drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid_tests,
> +		  drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid_desc);
> +
> +static struct kunit_case drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid,
> +			 drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_valid_gen_params),
> +	KUNIT_CASE_PARAM(drm_test_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid,
> +			 drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_invalid_gen_params),
> +	{ }
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite = {
> +	.name = "drm_get_tv_mode_from_name",
> +	.test_cases = drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_tests,
> +};
> +
> +kunit_test_suites(
> +	&drm_get_tv_mode_from_name_test_suite
> +);

Considering that there is only one suite, you could use the
kunit_test_suite macro instead.

Best Regards,
- Maíra Canal

>