> > >-----Original Message----- >From: Intel-gfx [mailto:intel-gfx-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Chris Wilson >Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 1:11 PM >To: intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [PATCH igt] igt: Add gem_exec_basic > >Extremely basic check that we can dispatch an execbuf on every ring. > >Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >--- > tests/Makefile.sources | 1 + > tests/gem_exec_basic.c | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 72 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tests/gem_exec_basic.c > >diff --git a/tests/Makefile.sources b/tests/Makefile.sources index 6c1df8d..4fbfe1b 100644 >--- a/tests/Makefile.sources >+++ b/tests/Makefile.sources >@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@ TESTS_progs_M = \ > gem_evict_everything \ > gem_exec_alignment \ > gem_exec_bad_domains \ >+ gem_exec_basic \ > gem_exec_faulting_reloc \ > gem_exec_nop \ > gem_exec_params \ >diff --git a/tests/gem_exec_basic.c b/tests/gem_exec_basic.c new file mode 100644 index 0000000..b42e458 >--- /dev/null >+++ b/tests/gem_exec_basic.c >@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@ >+/* >+ * Copyright © 2016 Intel Corporation >+ * >+ * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person >+obtaining a >+ * copy of this software and associated documentation files (the >+"Software"), >+ * to deal in the Software without restriction, including without >+limitation >+ * the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, >+sublicense, >+ * and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom >+the >+ * Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: >+ * >+ * The above copyright notice and this permission notice (including the >+next >+ * paragraph) shall be included in all copies or substantial portions >+of the >+ * Software. >+ * >+ * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, >+EXPRESS OR >+ * IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF >+MERCHANTABILITY, >+ * FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT >+SHALL >+ * THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR >+OTHER >+ * LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, >+ARISING >+ * FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER >+DEALINGS >+ * IN THE SOFTWARE. >+ */ >+ >+#include "igt.h" >+ >+IGT_TEST_DESCRIPTION("Basic sanity check of execbuf-ioctl rings."); >+ >+static void noop(int fd, unsigned ring) { >+ uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END; >+ struct drm_i915_gem_execbuffer2 execbuf; >+ struct drm_i915_gem_exec_object2 exec; >+ int ret; >+ >+ memset(&exec, 0, sizeof(exec)); >+ exec.handle = gem_create(fd, 4096); >+ gem_write(fd, exec.handle, 0, &bbe, sizeof(bbe)); >+ >+ memset(&execbuf, 0, sizeof(execbuf)); >+ execbuf.buffers_ptr = (uintptr_t)&exec; >+ execbuf.buffer_count = 1; >+ execbuf.flags = ring; >+ ret = __gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf); Where is this function defined? This gives an implicit declaration error on android. I assume you are just picking up a random one that is not static from another test? >+ igt_assert(ret == 0 || ret == -EINVAL); Does ret == -EINVAL allow this to run on older HW that has less rings without failing? If so is that the only case where this error would be returned? Perhaps it would be better to craft this to cause a skip if the ring is not present. It feels a bit odd for basic-bsd2 subtest to pass if the HW does not have a second bsd ring for example. //Derek >+ >+ gem_close(fd, exec.handle); >+} >+ >+igt_main >+{ >+ int fd = -1; >+ >+ igt_fixture >+ fd = drm_open_driver(DRIVER_INTEL); >+ >+ igt_subtest("basic-render") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_RENDER); >+ igt_subtest("basic-bsd") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_BSD); >+ igt_subtest("basic-bsd1") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_BSD | 1<<13 /*I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1*/); >+ igt_subtest("basic-bsd2") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_BSD | 2<<13 /*I915_EXEC_BSD_RING2*/); >+ igt_subtest("basic-blt") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_BLT); >+ igt_subtest("basic-vebox") >+ noop(fd, I915_EXEC_VEBOX); >+ >+ igt_fixture >+ close(fd); >+} >-- >2.7.0 > >_______________________________________________ >Intel-gfx mailing list >Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx > _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
