Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Message-ID: <f59c5d45-a689-8a94-a2ae-d2ffa835eedf@quicinc.com>
Date:   Tue, 5 Dec 2023 09:33:28 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.11.0
Subject: Re: Kunit drm_test_check_plane_state: EXPECTATION FAILED at
 drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_plane_helper_test.c:123
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Maxime Ripard <mripard@kernel.org>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
CC:     Jessica Zhang <quic_jesszhan@quicinc.com>,
        Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>, <lkft-triage@lists.linaro.org>,
        <regressions@lists.linux.dev>, <davidgow@google.com>,
        <maarten.lankhorst@linux.intel.com>, <tzimmermann@suse.de>,
        <airlied@gmail.com>, <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
        "Linux Kernel Functional Testing" <lkft@linaro.org>
References: <20231204173536.51003-1-naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>
 <rxv7jlfuwjib443pzdepbtgu454gdzemd3ojmmhbnhr4syneve@6me3bduyx2ee>
 <42d85b15-9ffd-4a08-b51e-a3367e57d128@suswa.mountain>
 <fgajgc7vp626nzeeqetkfbyadh53iti3mvoq4uck3zz3ysmvno@b3f7kxnwrwsd>
From:   Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <fgajgc7vp626nzeeqetkfbyadh53iti3mvoq4uck3zz3ysmvno@b3f7kxnwrwsd>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 12/5/2023 3:46 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 12:05:02PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:37:05AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> Hi Naresh,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the report
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 11:05:36PM +0530, Naresh Kamboju wrote:
>>>> The Kunit drm_plane_helper failed on all devices running Linux next-20231204
>>>>
>>>> ## Test Regressions (compared to next-20231201)
>>>> * qemu-armv7, kunit and
>>>> * x86, kunit
>>>>    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_downscaling_invalid
>>>>    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_drm_plane_helper
>>>>    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state
>>>>    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_positioning_invalid
>>>>    - drm_test_check_invalid_plane_state_upscaling_invalid
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_clipping_rotate_reflect
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_clipping_simple
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_downscaling
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_drm_test_check_plane_state
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_positioning_simple
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding1
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding2
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding3
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_rounding4
>>>>    - drm_test_check_plane_state_upscaling
>>>
>>> I found the source of failure to be f1e75da5364e ("drm/atomic: Loosen FB
>>> atomic checks").
>>>
>>> Fortunately for us, it's already been reverted yesterday for some
>>> unrelated reason, so it should be fixed in next-20231205 onward.
>>
>> Sorry, that's a bummer that these patches were reverted.  :(  The whole
>> episode was a bit unfortunate...
>>
>> Qualcom has been working on those patches for a year.  They must not be
>> using kunit testing as part of their QC...  It's some kind of
>> communication failure on our part.
> 
> That's definitely a communication failure, but that's mostly on us :)
> 
> The reason these patches were reverted was completely unrelated to the
> kunit failures here: it failed the basic requirement we have on
> intel-gpu-tools tests and open-source userspace examples for new uAPIs.
> 
> So whether or not kunit tests would have passed, these patches were
> applied due to inattention and would have been reverted anyway
> 
> Maxime

The patches were reverted because the corresponding IGT/compositor 
changes were not posted yet. We will re-try applying once those are 
accepted.

Regarding KUnit tests, no we did not run this test and yes you are 
right, we were not running KUnit testing as the DRM CI mainly validates IGT.

We will certainly help to fix this failure. Most likely the KUnit tests 
need to be fixed to allow for a NULL FB.

If this is documented somewhere as a requirement, please share it and we 
should add KUnit testing to our DRM CI as well so that atleast this kind 
of failure will not repeat.