On 3/31/2023 4:56 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
Hi Vinay,
+/*
+ * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted
+ * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms.
+ */
+#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000
+
+static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id)
+{
+ uint32_t val;
+
+ igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1);
igt_assert?
ok.
+static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt)
+{
+ uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe;
+
+ /* Save frequencies */
+ rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ);
+ rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ);
+ rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ);
+ igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0);
+
+ /*
+ * Negative bound tests
+ * RPn is the floor
+ * RP0 is the ceiling
+ */
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ?
We could do this check for max as well. But this is trying to see if min
can be set to below rpn.
+ igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
+
After addressing the above, this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.di...@intel.com>
Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new
tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to
fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series?
Sure, will do. Thanks for the review.
Vinay.
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
