[igt-dev] [i-g-t] tests/i915/exec_balancer: Added Skip invalid-bonds

[Katragadda, MastanX]

Only subtest invalid-bonds failing in gem_exec_balancer when bonding not supported.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dixit, Ashutosh <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com> 
Sent: 20 August 2021 01:31
To: Katragadda, MastanX <mastanx.katragadda at intel.com>
Cc: igt-dev at lists.freedesktop.org; Surendrakumar Upadhyay, TejaskumarX <tejaskumarx.surendrakumar.upadhyay at intel.com>; jason at jlekstrand.net; Brost, Matthew <matthew.brost at intel.com>
Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [i-g-t] tests/i915/exec_balancer: Added Skip invalid-bonds

On Thu, 19 Aug 2021 12:46:29 -0700, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
>
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2021 23:10:29 -0700, Mastan Katragadda wrote:
> >
> > Added skip which ever gen12+ platforms not supporing bonding.
> >
> > Disable bonding on gen12+ platforms aside from ones already 
> > supported by the i915 - TGL, RKL, and ADL-S.
> >
> > Link: 
> > https://cgit.freedesktop.org/drm-tip/commit/?id=ce7e75c7ef1bf8ea3d94
> > 7da8c674d2f40fd7d73
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mastan Katragadda <mastanx.katragadda at intel.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c | 4 ++++
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c 
> > b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c index 2f98950b..2d9c1a53 100644
> > --- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> > +++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_balancer.c
> > @@ -349,6 +349,10 @@ static void invalid_bonds(int i915)
> >		bonds[n].num_bonds = 1;
> >	}
> >	engines.extensions = to_user_pointer(&bonds);
> > +
> > +	igt_skip_on_f(__set_param_fresh_context(i915, p) == -ENODEV,
> > +			"Bonding not supported\n");
> > +
> >	igt_assert_eq(__set_param_fresh_context(i915, p), 0);
>
> int ret;
>
> ret = __set_param_fresh_context(i915, p); igt_skip_on_f(ret  == 
> -ENODEV, "Bonding not supported\n"); igt_assert_eq(ret, 0);
>
> Also, is this the only test failing in gem_exec_balancer when bonding 
> is not supported? Or are there others too? Thanks.

Looks like the invalid_balancer test introduced in 17914147aaf will also fail since kernel will now return -ENODEV and not -EINVAL?