On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
>
Hi Vinay,
> +/*
> + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted
> + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms.
> + */
> +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000
> +
> +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id)
> +{
> + uint32_t val;
> +
> + igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1);
igt_assert?
> +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt)
> +{
> + uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe;
> +
> + /* Save frequencies */
> + rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ);
> + rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ);
> + rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ);
> + igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0);
> +
> + /*
> + * Negative bound tests
> + * RPn is the floor
> + * RP0 is the ceiling
> + */
> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ?
> + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
> +
After addressing the above, this is:
Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit@xxxxxxxxx>
Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new
tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to
fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series?
Thanks.
--
Ashutosh
