Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-04 17:25:27) > > On 04/05/2018 13:42, Chris Wilson wrote: > > Ignore the tests looking at the innards of execlists and its submission > > tasklets on machines that don't support execlists! > > > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c | 4 ++++ > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > index ee7e22d18ff8..b7460b5dd4f7 100644 > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c > > @@ -505,5 +505,9 @@ int intel_execlists_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *i915) > > SUBTEST(live_preempt), > > SUBTEST(live_late_preempt), > > }; > > + > > + if (!HAS_EXECLISTS(i915)) > > + return 0; > > + > > return i915_subtests(tests, i915); > > } > > > > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Is it a mystery why it wasn't discovered when tests were added? No, they do feature tests more precise than HAS_EXECLISTS, namely preemption. Just later on I'm planing some other tests that want the general guard, hence nipping it in the bud before you ask for it to be split out of the larger patch. -Chris _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
