Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] i915/gem_ctx_engine: Exercise for_each_context_engine() with custom engine[]

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2020-02-14 21:49:16)
> 
> 
> On 14/02/20 11:40, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > Set up a custom engine map with no engines, and check that the
> > for_each_context_engine() correctly iterates over nothing.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson 
> > ---
> >   tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c | 28 
> >   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> > index 063140e0f..6a2edd1e0 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
> > @@ -549,6 +549,31 @@ static void independent(int i915)
> >   gem_context_destroy(i915, param.ctx_id);
> >   }
> >   
> > +static void libapi(int i915)
> > +{
> > + struct i915_context_param_engines engines = {};
> 
> Is there a case for invalid engines as well?

One would have to think what the behaviour should be :)

for_each_context_engine() should iterate over every engine defined,
providing you with (e->class, e->instance, e->pretty_name).

Invalid will still have an entry, maybe with "unknown".

for_each_physical_engine would skip invalid entries that are rejected by
the kernel. It's really just
for_each_context_engine()
for_each_if(gem_has_ring())

and I think I should drop the second loop here and focus on testing that
for_each_context_engine() simply reports back the class:inst we put
into the context.
-Chris
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/4] i915/gem_ctx_engine: Exercise for_each_context_engine() with custom engine[]

[Antonio Argenziano]

On 14/02/20 11:40, Chris Wilson wrote:

Set up a custom engine map with no engines, and check that the
for_each_context_engine() correctly iterates over nothing.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson 
---
  tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c | 28 
  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
index 063140e0f..6a2edd1e0 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_ctx_engines.c
@@ -549,6 +549,31 @@ static void independent(int i915)
gem_context_destroy(i915, param.ctx_id);
  }
  
+static void libapi(int i915)

+{
+   struct i915_context_param_engines engines = {};


Is there a case for invalid engines as well?

Acked-by: Antonio Argenziano 


+   struct drm_i915_gem_context_param p = {
+   .ctx_id = gem_context_create(i915),
+   .param = I915_CONTEXT_PARAM_ENGINES,
+   .value = to_user_pointer(),
+   .size = sizeof(engines),
+   };
+   const struct intel_execution_engine2 *e;
+   unsigned int count = 0;
+
+   gem_context_set_param(i915, );
+
+   for_each_context_engine(i915, p.ctx_id, e)
+   count++;
+   igt_assert_eq(count, 0);
+
+   for_each_physical_engine(i915, p.ctx_id, e)
+   count++;
+   igt_assert_eq(count, 0);
+
+   gem_context_destroy(i915, p.ctx_id);
+}
+
  igt_main
  {
int i915 = -1;
@@ -584,6 +609,9 @@ igt_main
igt_subtest("independent")
independent(i915);
  
+	igt_subtest("libapi")

+   libapi(i915);
+
igt_fixture
igt_stop_hang_detector();
  }


___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx