On 2021-11-18 04:19, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021 15:17:52 +0530 Bhanuprakash Modem bhanuprakash.modem@intel.com wrote:
Negative check for:
- plane gamma lut sizes
- plane degamma lut sizes
- plane ctm matrix sizes
Cc: Harry Wentland harry.wentland@amd.com Cc: Ville Syrjälä ville.syrjala@linux.intel.com Cc: Juha-Pekka Heikkila juhapekka.heikkila@gmail.com Cc: Uma Shankar uma.shankar@intel.com Signed-off-by: Bhanuprakash Modem bhanuprakash.modem@intel.com
tests/kms_color.c | 127 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 127 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/kms_color.c b/tests/kms_color.c index e14b37cb6f..d9fe417ba9 100644 --- a/tests/kms_color.c +++ b/tests/kms_color.c @@ -736,6 +736,118 @@ static void test_pipe_limited_range_ctm(data_t *data, } #endif
+static bool invalid_plane_gamma_test(data_t *data, igt_plane_t *plane) +{
- igt_display_t *display = &data->display;
- drmModePropertyPtr gamma_mode = NULL;
- uint32_t i;
- igt_info("Plane invalid gamma test is running on pipe-%s plane-%s(%s)\n",
kmstest_pipe_name(plane->pipe->pipe),kmstest_plane_type_name(plane->type),is_hdr_plane(plane) ? "hdr":"sdr");- igt_require(igt_plane_has_prop(plane, IGT_PLANE_GAMMA_MODE));
- igt_require(igt_plane_has_prop(plane, IGT_PLANE_GAMMA_LUT));
- gamma_mode = get_plane_gamma_degamma_mode(plane, IGT_PLANE_GAMMA_MODE);
- /* Iterate all supported gamma modes. */
- for (i = 0; i < gamma_mode->count_enums; i++) {
segment_data_t *segment_info = NULL;size_t lut_size = 0;/* Ignore 'no gamma' from enum list. */if (!strcmp(gamma_mode->enums[i].name, "no gamma"))continue;igt_info("Trying to use gamma mode: \'%s\'\n", gamma_mode->enums[i].name);segment_info = get_segment_data(data, gamma_mode->enums[i].value,gamma_mode->enums[i].name);lut_size = sizeof(struct drm_color_lut_ext) * segment_info->entries_count;igt_plane_set_prop_enum(plane, IGT_PLANE_GAMMA_MODE, gamma_mode->enums[i].name);invalid_plane_lut_sizes(display, plane,IGT_PLANE_GAMMA_LUT,lut_size);clear_segment_data(segment_info);/* One enum is enough. */break;- }
- drmModeFreeProperty(gamma_mode);
- return true;
+}
+static bool invalid_plane_degamma_test(data_t *data, igt_plane_t *plane) +{
- igt_display_t *display = &data->display;
- drmModePropertyPtr degamma_mode = NULL;
- uint32_t i;
- igt_info("Plane invalid degamma test is running on pipe-%s plane-%s(%s)\n",
kmstest_pipe_name(plane->pipe->pipe),kmstest_plane_type_name(plane->type),is_hdr_plane(plane) ? "hdr":"sdr");- igt_require(igt_plane_has_prop(plane, IGT_PLANE_DEGAMMA_MODE));
- igt_require(igt_plane_has_prop(plane, IGT_PLANE_DEGAMMA_LUT));
- degamma_mode = get_plane_gamma_degamma_mode(plane, IGT_PLANE_DEGAMMA_MODE);
- /* Iterate all supported degamma modes. */
- for (i = 0; i < degamma_mode->count_enums; i++) {
segment_data_t *segment_info = NULL;size_t lut_size = 0;/* Ignore 'no degamma' from enum list. */if (!strcmp(degamma_mode->enums[i].name, "no degamma"))continue;igt_info("Trying to use degamma mode: \'%s\'\n", degamma_mode->enums[i].name);segment_info = get_segment_data(data,degamma_mode->enums[i].value,degamma_mode->enums[i].name);lut_size = sizeof(struct drm_color_lut_ext) * segment_info->entries_count * 2;igt_plane_set_prop_enum(plane,IGT_PLANE_DEGAMMA_MODE,degamma_mode->enums[i].name);invalid_plane_lut_sizes(display, plane,IGT_PLANE_DEGAMMA_LUT,lut_size);clear_segment_data(segment_info);/* One enum is enough. */break;Why is one enum enough?
I think it's another intellism since Uma's patches only report one enum.
Since the API is designed to allow for multiple enums the test should just run on all of them. It'd be a trivial change to the test.
Harry
The same question for the other case in this patch.
- }
- drmModeFreeProperty(degamma_mode);
- return true;
+}
+static bool invalid_plane_ctm_test(data_t *data, igt_plane_t *plane) +{
- igt_info("Plane invalid CTM test is running on pipe-%s plane-%s(%s)\n",
kmstest_pipe_name(plane->pipe->pipe),kmstest_plane_type_name(plane->type),is_hdr_plane(plane) ? "hdr":"sdr");- igt_require(igt_plane_has_prop(plane, IGT_PLANE_CTM));
- invalid_plane_lut_sizes(&data->display, plane,
IGT_PLANE_CTM,sizeof(struct drm_color_ctm));The code says you're trying shove a LUT into a CTM blob. I understand that mechanically this is test you want to do, feed a wrong sized blob, and in this case the contents do not matter (unlike with actual LUTs), but reading this code is completely misleading and does not make sense. It takes a while to think about what you actually want to test here, and then reverse-engineer the code to understand that that is what actually happens, too. That is too much mental burden for the reader to realize that this piece of code actually works.
Thanks, pq
- return true;
+}
static bool plane_gamma_test(data_t *data, igt_plane_t *plane) { igt_output_t *output; @@ -1411,6 +1523,21 @@ static void run_tests_for_plane(data_t *data, enum pipe pipe) ctm_tests[i].iter); } }
- igt_describe("Negative check for invalid plane gamma lut sizes");
- igt_subtest_f("pipe-%s-invalid-plane-gamma-lut-sizes",
kmstest_pipe_name(pipe))run_plane_color_test(data, pipe, invalid_plane_gamma_test);- igt_describe("Negative check for invalid plane degamma lut sizes");
- igt_subtest_f("pipe-%s-invalid-plane-degamma-lut-sizes",
kmstest_pipe_name(pipe))run_plane_color_test(data, pipe, invalid_plane_degamma_test);- igt_describe("Negative check for invalid plane ctm matrix sizes");
- igt_subtest_f("pipe-%s-invalid-plane-ctm-matrix-sizes",
kmstest_pipe_name(pipe))run_plane_color_test(data, pipe, invalid_plane_ctm_test);}
igt_main