On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:37:55PM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote:
> When reading the timestamp register with single 64b read, we are observing
> invalid values on x86_64:
>
> [f = valid counter value | X = garbage]
>
> i386: 0x0000000fffffffff
> x86_64: 0xffffffffXXXXXXXX
>
> Test checks if the counter is moving and increasing.
> Add a check to see if we can use (reg | 1) flag to get a proper 36b timestamp,
> shifting the value on x86_64 if we can't.
>
> v2: More iterations of monotonic test, comments, minor fixups (Chris)
>
> Cc: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michał Winiarski <michal.winiarski@xxxxxxxxx>
Down to being really pinicky now,
> +static int read_register(int fd, uint64_t offset, uint64_t * val)
> {
> + int ret;
> struct local_drm_i915_reg_read reg_read;
> + reg_read.offset = offset;
>
> - reg_read.offset = 0x2358;
> - igt_fail_on_f(drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read),
> - "positive test case failed: ");
> + ret = drmIoctl(fd, REG_READ_IOCTL, ®_read);
A nice trick to use here is
ret = 0;
if (drmIoctl())
ret = -errno;
Then later bad-reg becomes igt_assert_eq(read_register(BAD), -EINVAL);
> +static uint64_t timer_query(int fd, uint64_t * val)
Return is just int
> + igt_subtest("bad-register")
> + igt_assert(read_register(fd, 0x12345678, &val) == -1 &&
> + errno == EINVAL);
> +
> + igt_subtest("timestamp-moving")
> + test_timestamp_moving(fd);
>
> - igt_assert(ret != 0 && errno == EINVAL);
> + igt_subtest("timestamp-monotonic")
> + test_timestamp_monotonic(fd);
Both of these subtests should start with
igt_skip(timer_query() != 0)
so that we correctly disable the test for all kernels/machines that don't
support the register read. (Rather than reporting the tests as fail.)
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
