2013/11/4 Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:20:56AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> 2013/10/27 Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx>: >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:44:05AM -0200, Paulo Zanoni wrote: >> >> From: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> >> This test is based on pc8.c. It copies most of the tests from pc8.c, >> >> but it depends on runtime PM status changes (parsed from sysfs) >> >> instead of PC8 residency changes (parsed from the MSR registers). >> >> There's also a test that checks for PC8 residency. >> >> >> >> For now, runtime PM and PC8 are different features, so having 2 test >> >> suites makes sense. In the future we'll merge both, so we'll only get >> >> PC8 when runtime PM is enabled, so we'll just kill pc8.c and keep >> >> using runtime_pm.c. >> >> >> >> Changes compared to pc8.c: >> >> - We now look at the runtime PM status instead of PC8 residencies >> >> - Added more GEM tests (mmap, pread, execbuf, stress tests) >> >> - Added LPSP and non-LPSP tests >> >> - Added tests fro sysfs and debugfs files >> >> - Added a test specifically for PC8 >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni@xxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > Since the actual tests we're running are so similar I prefer if we merge >> > all the runtime pm tests in one file. It makes testcase maintaince (and >> > bufixing, that happens) much easier. I guess a struct per runtime pm >> > method (pc8, D3, ...) with a few vfuncs should get things going. The >> > overall test would loop over all the pm methods and try to set things up. >> > Then loop over all subtests and either skip them all (if that particular >> > runtime pm method isn't supported) or just run them. >> > >> > We've had a few other case of massive copy&pasting in i-g-t and in the >> > past few months I've merged most of them back again. >> >> At this moment I'm really leaning towards merging PC8 and D3 into a >> single feature, so it won't be possible to test them in separate >> anymore. With this, we'd just have runtime_pm.c and we'd completely >> kill pc8.c. > > All this time I've been wondering whether PC8 offers anything > substantial over D3. It's more like "PC8 is a diet D3". I don't see why anyone would want PC8 without D3. > I think we discussed this in some meeting, and > GTT maps were the only thing that came to my mind. But IIRC you > said that you weren't actually sure whether GTT maps still work in > PC8. Has that been verified or is it still an open question? Daniel also asked for this test. This week I finally had some time to go back to this. I just added a test for GTT mmaps and the test fails while we're on D3 (didn't try PC8-without-D3 yet). Clever ideas on how to fix the problem are always welcome :) > > -- > Ville Syrjälä > Intel OTC -- Paulo Zanoni _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
