[igt-dev] [PATCH v15 4/5] lib/i915: add gem_engine_topology library and for_each loop definition

[Andi Shyti]

> > > +
> > > +     e2->class    = class;
> > > +     e2->instance = instance;
> > > +     e2->flags    = flags;
> > > +
> > > +     if (class < 0 && instance < 0) {
> > > +             e2->name = virtual_name;
> > > +     } else {
> > > +             const struct intel_execution_engine2 *__e2;
> > > +
> > > +             __for_each_static_engine(__e2)
> > > +                     if (__e2->class == class && __e2->instance == instance)
> > > +                             break;
> > > +
> > > +             e2->name = __e2->name ? __e2->name : unknown_name;
> > 
> > I've now started to worry about how will CI/buglog handle us forgetting 
> > to expand the static list. (More than one subtest of a same name for 
> > "test-$engine_name" ones?) Do we want and igt_warn on unknown engines to 
> > make it more visible? Or even just crash?
> 
> Set flags to -1ull. That should cause EINVAL forever one hopes.
> 
> We shouldn't get any test (atm) with unknown as we only use the static
> table for test generation. For runtime test discovery, we can apply the
> filter of does this engine actually exist.

make sense, we could check it with gem_has_ring() and if it doesn't
exist print a warning and discard it.

> > I remembered how at one point I had "IS_PHYSICAL" as a flag in engine query.
> > 
> > Or we make this here more explicit by being "IS_VIRTUAL" and invert the 
> > test in the caller?
> 
> Aye. I think you are right here, and we need to put a caps field into
> the engine_data (filled in by i915_query for valid classes and default
> to !phys for invalid slots).

what do you mean exactly?

Andi