Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt 2/2] tests/gem_exec_suspend: Add basic s4-devices subtest

[Imre Deak]

On ke, 2016-10-05 at 10:22 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:04:53PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> > Add a new subtest that performs suspend-to-disk, but instead of
> > doing
> > the full sequence it suspends/resumes only devices. A failed s4
> > subtest
> > and a successful s4-devices subtest would indicate a kernel core or
> > BIOS
> > problem as opposed to some issue in the driver.
> 
> Worth doing for suspend as well? Same argument for easier diagnosis
> of
> any problem.

Yes, can add that. Btw, these pm_test cycles complete faster (for
instance 7 sec for s3-devices vs. 20 sec s3).

> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak 
> 
> Looks sensible to me.
> -Chris
> 
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx

Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt 2/2] tests/gem_exec_suspend: Add basic s4-devices subtest

[Chris Wilson]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 12:04:53PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote:
> Add a new subtest that performs suspend-to-disk, but instead of doing
> the full sequence it suspends/resumes only devices. A failed s4 subtest
> and a successful s4-devices subtest would indicate a kernel core or BIOS
> problem as opposed to some issue in the driver.

Worth doing for suspend as well? Same argument for easier diagnosis of
any problem.
 
> Signed-off-by: Imre Deak 

Looks sensible to me.
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
___
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx