On 08/03/18 17:03, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Antonio Argenziano (2018-03-09 00:45:42)
On 08/03/18 09:13, Chris Wilson wrote:
Exercise some new API that allows applications to request that
individual contexts are executed within a desired frequency range.
v2: Split single/continuous set_freq subtests
Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Paneri, Praveen <praveen.paneri@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kamble, Sagar A <sagar.a.kamble@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Antonio Argenziano <antonio.argenziano@xxxxxxxxx>
---
tests/Makefile.am | 1 +
tests/Makefile.sources | 1 +
tests/gem_ctx_freq.c | 604 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
tests/meson.build | 1 +
4 files changed, 607 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tests/gem_ctx_freq.c
+ uint32_t cur, discard;
+
+ set_freq(fd, ctx, freq, freq);
+ get_freq(fd, ctx, &cur, &discard);
igt_assert_eq(freq, cur)?
Not quite. The trick is that the interface is not strictly idempotent,
since we pass in MHz, the driver converts that into freq bins and spits
it back out to the nearest MHz. So cur is not strictly freq, it just
happens that 50MHz is the bin size on gen9.
The idea here is that we grab the adjusted freq from the driver to
validate with.
I see, can we enforce a tolerance? It feels like we are trusting the
kernel too much, but if that is the only thing we can do...
+static void smoketest(int fd, int timeout)
+{
+ unsigned int engines[16];
use a macro instead of magic number 16.
#define THIS_IS_FAR_MORE_MAGIC_THAN_A_MEANINGLESS_BARE_NUMBER_THAT_YOU_SHOULD_NOT_BE_READING_ANYTHING_INTO 16
/rant
We call that MAX_EGINES in gem_exec_schedule ;).
Thanks,
Antonio
+static void invalid_param(int fd)
+{
gem_ctx_param is going to be upset again pretty soon ;).
Poor thing.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
