Remove the usage of omax-vda from video_decode_accelerator_unittest

Remove the usage of omax-vda from the video_decode_accelerator_unittest.

Also remove the flag "use-exynos-vda" from the test since 
it is not needed anymore.

BUG=223823
Committed: https://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=192996

[Owen Lin, 2013-03-28 02:30:04]

PTAL. Thanks. :)

[yuli, 2013-03-28 02:42:45]

https://codereview.chromium.org/12844012/diff/1/content/common/gpu/media/vide...
File content/common/gpu/media/video_decode_accelerator_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12844012/diff/1/content/common/gpu/media/vide...
content/common/gpu/media/video_decode_accelerator_unittest.cc:991: if
(CommandLine::ForCurrentProcess()->HasSwitch(switches::kUseExynosVda))
Just fyr, how about changing use-exynos to use-omx flag? (then we may not have
to really use it in command line for all platforms.)

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-03-28 07:16:50]

This seems wrong:
1) Why pass irrelevant flags?  Can we not have the test driver specify the flag
only where appropriate?  I worry about confusion arising from
apparently-successful test runs on that only pass because the flag is ignored,
but which imply that the flag is relevant for the platform.
2) That flag should die shortly - see bug 223194

FYI the CL description lists the bug as "BUG=chrome:223823" but the codesite
project name is "chromium" not "chrome".  Also since "chromium" is the default
codesite project this instance of rietveld is used for, you don't need to
specify the project at all, so the line can simply be BUG=223823

[Owen Lin, 2013-03-28 07:47:03]

On 2013/03/28 07:16:50, Ami Fischman wrote:
> This seems wrong:
> 1) Why pass irrelevant flags?  Can we not have the test driver specify the
flag
> only where appropriate?  I worry about confusion arising from
> apparently-successful test runs on that only pass because the flag is ignored,
> but which imply that the flag is relevant for the platform.
> 2) That flag should die shortly - see bug 223194
> 
> FYI the CL description lists the bug as "BUG=chrome:223823" but the codesite
> project name is "chromium" not "chrome".  Also since "chromium" is the default
> codesite project this instance of rietveld is used for, you don't need to
> specify the project at all, so the line can simply be BUG=223823

How about just removing the "use-exynos-vda" for the unittest and always use
EVDA.

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-03-28 08:11:37]

WFM, esp. if it's part of the above-cited bug.


On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:47 AM, <owenlin@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2013/03/28 07:16:50, Ami Fischman wrote:
>
>> This seems wrong:
>> 1) Why pass irrelevant flags?  Can we not have the test driver specify the
>>
> flag
>
>> only where appropriate?  I worry about confusion arising from
>> apparently-successful test runs on that only pass because the flag is
>> ignored,
>> but which imply that the flag is relevant for the platform.
>> 2) That flag should die shortly - see bug 223194
>>
>
>  FYI the CL description lists the bug as "BUG=chrome:223823" but the
>> codesite
>> project name is "chromium" not "chrome".  Also since "chromium" is the
>> default
>> codesite project this instance of rietveld is used for, you don't need to
>> specify the project at all, so the line can simply be BUG=223823
>>
>
> How about just removing the "use-exynos-vda" for the unittest and always
> use
> EVDA.
>
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/12844012/<https://codereview.chromium.org/1...
>

[Pawel Osciak, 2013-03-28 18:21:39]

Agreed to using EVDA as default and not testing OVDA. AFAIK John's plan is
removing OVDA after 27 if EVDA proves stable there.

On 2013/03/28 08:11:37, Ami Fischman wrote:
> WFM, esp. if it's part of the above-cited bug.
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:47 AM, <mailto:owenlin@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2013/03/28 07:16:50, Ami Fischman wrote:
> >
> >> This seems wrong:
> >> 1) Why pass irrelevant flags?  Can we not have the test driver specify the
> >>
> > flag
> >
> >> only where appropriate?  I worry about confusion arising from
> >> apparently-successful test runs on that only pass because the flag is
> >> ignored,
> >> but which imply that the flag is relevant for the platform.
> >> 2) That flag should die shortly - see bug 223194
> >>
> >
> >  FYI the CL description lists the bug as "BUG=chrome:223823" but the
> >> codesite
> >> project name is "chromium" not "chrome".  Also since "chromium" is the
> >> default
> >> codesite project this instance of rietveld is used for, you don't need to
> >> specify the project at all, so the line can simply be BUG=223823
> >>
> >
> > How about just removing the "use-exynos-vda" for the unittest and always
> > use
> > EVDA.
> >
> >
>
https://codereview.chromium.**org/12844012/%3Chttps://codereview.chromium.org...>
> >

[Owen Lin, 2013-04-01 09:14:12]

PTAL

[yuli, 2013-04-01 10:35:24]

https://codereview.chromium.org/12844012/diff/8001/content/common/gpu/media/v...
File content/common/gpu/media/video_decode_accelerator_unittest.cc (left):

https://codereview.chromium.org/12844012/diff/8001/content/common/gpu/media/v...
content/common/gpu/media/video_decode_accelerator_unittest.cc:379: if
(CommandLine::ForCurrentProcess()->HasSwitch(switches::kUseExynosVda)) {
remove kUseExynosVda from content_switches.h?

[Pawel Osciak, 2013-04-01 14:50:19]

lgtm

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-04-01 14:52:01]

The CL summary & description need to be rewritten

[Owen Lin, 2013-04-02 03:58:38]

On 2013/04/01 14:52:01, Ami Fischman wrote:
> The CL summary & description need to be rewritten

Done

[Ami GONE FROM CHROMIUM, 2013-04-02 15:53:51]

LGTM % CL description nit:
This CL does not:
"Also remove the flag "use-exynos-vda" since it is not needed anymore."

Instead, it removes the flag _from the test_. 
(the flag still exists and is used by chrome code)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-08 06:42:08]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/owenlin@chromium.org/12844012/14001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-08 06:50:19]

Sorry for I got bad news for ya.
Compile failed with a clobber build on linux_chromeos_clang.
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium/buildstatus?builder=linux_chro...
Your code is likely broken or HEAD is junk. Please ensure your
code is not broken then alert the build sheriffs.
Look at the try server FAQ for more details.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-09 02:58:46]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/owenlin@chromium.org/12844012/14001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2013-04-09 03:47:19]

Change committed as 192996