Re: [PATCH] drm/msm/dpu: Use the encoder for default CRC source

[Rob Clark]

On Sun, Oct 8, 2023 at 4:21 PM Helen Koike <helen.koike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/10/2023 16:59, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Oct 2023 at 20:56, Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> i-g-t expects the CRC to reflect any applied CTM.  But the layer mixer
> >> source is upstream of the DSPP, so it is before the CTM is applied.
> >>
> >> Switch the default source to 'encoder' instead so that the CRC is
> >> captured downstream of the DSPP.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Clark <robdclark@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-sc7180-fails.txt |  4 ----
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-sc7180-skips.txt |  5 -----
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/ci/xfails/msm-sdm845-fails.txt | 11 +----------
> >>   drivers/gpu/drm/msm/disp/dpu1/dpu_crtc.c       |  6 +++---
> >
> > I'm not sure, if updating the CI skip list together with the
> > functional changs is a good idea, my preference would be towards two
> > separate patches.
>
> On the other hand, having both together in the same patch documents
> which tests this PATCH is fixing.

on the mesa side of things, where we have more experience with CI,
I've found updating expectations in same patch as code change to be
hugely useful.  I *might* end up dropping the xfails changes when I
apply this patch (because there are some dependencies on igt uprev and
I'm not sure we have enough CI runs to be confident about flakes) but
I definitely believe that we should be updating expectations along
with code changes.

BR,
-R

> Regards,
> Helen
>
> >
> > Nevertheless:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >>   4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >
> >