On 01/05/2019 12:52, Chris Wilson wrote:
Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2019-05-01 12:42:59)
+ switch (engine->engine.engine_class) {
+ case I915_ENGINE_CLASS_RENDER:
+ /* Will be tested later. */
+ break;
+ case I915_ENGINE_CLASS_COPY:
+ igt_assert(gem_has_blt(fd));
+ break;
+ case I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO:
+ switch (engine->engine.engine_instance) {
+ case 0:
+ igt_assert(gem_has_bsd(fd));
+ break;
+ case 1:
+ igt_assert(gem_has_bsd2(fd));
+ break;
Is that relationship a given?
One could argue that gem_has_blt() means that I915_EXEC_BLT works, but
without !gem_has_blt() we could still access CLASS_COPY:0 via
ctx->engines[].
"without !gem_has_blt()".. hmmm what do you mean? If you mean
gem_has_blt() is false but bcs:0 is still accessible via ctx->engines[]
then how?
+ }
+ break;
+ case I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO_ENHANCE:
+ igt_assert(gem_has_vebox(fd));
+ break;
+ default:
+ igt_assert(0);
+ }
+ }
+
+ /* Reverse check to the above - all GET_PARAM engines are present. */
+ igt_assert(has_engine(engines, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_RENDER, 0));
+ if (gem_has_blt(fd))
+ igt_assert(has_engine(engines, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_COPY, 0));
+ if (gem_has_bsd(fd))
+ igt_assert(has_engine(engines, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 0));
+ if (gem_has_bsd2(fd))
+ igt_assert(has_engine(engines, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO, 1));
+ if (gem_has_vebox(fd))
+ igt_assert(has_engine(engines, I915_ENGINE_CLASS_VIDEO_ENHANCE,
+ 0));
Whereas this should always make sense, given the legacy interface and
the modern interface, the modern interface should be a superset of the
legacy.
Just thinking aloud.
Sure, no harm in looking at it again. The test was written long time ago.
Regards,
Tvrtko
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
