On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24:27AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 07:15:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 09:58:38AM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:34:18AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 07:58:03PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > > > > CC: Chad Versace <chad.versace at linux.intel.com> > > > > > CC: Bryan Bell <bryan.j.bell at intel.com> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > > > > > > > So I think we should run this from igt and check its return value. And > > > > since we've had a few bugs with other (currently untested) igt tools, can > > > > you please add a new igt_tools testcase which just runs those? I'm > > > > thinking of intel_reg_dumper and intel_reg_read (with some render ring > > > > register that exists everywhere) on top of running intel_get_llc_size > > > > here. > > > > > > What would you like exactly for the check? Just to make sure platforms > > > that should have LLC return a value > 1? > > > > Just check that it runs without an non-zero exit code. > > That doesn't really check the interface works as advertised though. Same > for the below. It checks more than nothing and at least in the case of reg IO breakage in the past that was good enough to catch things. -Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch
