On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 12:02:59PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: > A prior(rps) test leaves the system in a bad state causing failures > in the basic test. Why? What was the freq immediately before the failure that made the machine to be busted and not accept the new freq request? Maybe we should use this information to limit the freq requests that we accept instead of workaround the test case. Otherwise we are at risk of users selecting the bad freq that let " the system in a bad state"... > Set min/max to expected values before running it. > Test will restore values at the end. > > Link: https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/intel/-/issues/8670 > > Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar <vinay.belgaumkar@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > tests/intel/i915_pm_freq_api.c | 8 ++++++-- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/intel/i915_pm_freq_api.c b/tests/intel/i915_pm_freq_api.c > index 03bd0d05b..6018692a2 100644 > --- a/tests/intel/i915_pm_freq_api.c > +++ b/tests/intel/i915_pm_freq_api.c > @@ -55,7 +55,11 @@ static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt) > 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_debug("GT: %d, RPn: %d, RPe: %d, RP0: %d", gt, rpn, rpe, rp0); > + igt_debug("GT: %d, RPn: %d, RPe: %d, RP0: %d\n", gt, rpn, rpe, rp0); > + > + /* Set min/max to RPn, RP0 for baseline behavior */ > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn) > 0); > + igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0) > 0); > > /* > * Negative bound tests > @@ -170,7 +174,7 @@ igt_main > for_each_sysfs_gt_dirfd(i915, dirfd, gt) { > stash_min[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ); > stash_max[gt] = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ); > - igt_debug("GT: %d, min: %d, max: %d", gt, stash_min[gt], stash_max[gt]); > + igt_debug("GT: %d, min: %d, max: %d\n", gt, stash_min[gt], stash_max[gt]); > igt_pm_ignore_slpc_efficient_freq(i915, dirfd, true); > } > igt_install_exit_handler(restore_sysfs_freq); > -- > 2.38.1 >
