[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v4 3/3] tests/i915/i915_pm_dc: Modify dc9 test

[Imre Deak]

On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 11:20:15PM +0530, Swati Sharma wrote:
> Existing dc9 test is modified. Added new condition,
> runtime_suspended_time value should increases when system
> enters dc9. This condition will be checked for both igfx
> and dgfx whereas existing condition where we wait for
> dc counter to reset is limited only to igfx.
> 
> v3: -changed test design (imre)
> v4: -var name changed (imre)
>     -restricted counter reset condition to dg1 and dg2
>      platforms only (anshuman)
>     -swapped rpm vs dc9 wait order condition (imre)
> 
> Signed-off-by: Swati Sharma <swati2.sharma at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
>  1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c b/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> index d90d64cca..040cc747c 100644
> --- a/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> +++ b/tests/i915/i915_pm_dc.c
> @@ -31,8 +31,11 @@
>  #include "igt_kmod.h"
>  #include "igt_psr.h"
>  #include "igt_sysfs.h"
> +#include "igt_device.h"
> +#include "igt_device_scan.h"
>  #include "limits.h"
>  #include "time.h"
> +#include "igt_pm.h"
>  
>  /* DC State Flags */
>  #define CHECK_DC5	(1 << 0)
> @@ -407,35 +410,59 @@ static bool support_dc6(int debugfs_fd)
>  	return strstr(buf, "DC5 -> DC6 count");
>  }
>  
> -static bool dc9_wait_entry(uint32_t debugfs_fd, int dc_target, int prev_dc, int seconds)
> +static bool is_dgfx(data_t *data)
>  {
> -	/*
> -	 * since we do not have DC9 counter,
> -	 * so we rely on dc5/dc6 counter reset to check if display engine was in DC9.
> -	 */
> -	return igt_wait(read_dc_counter(debugfs_fd, dc_target) <
> -			prev_dc, seconds, 100);
> +	char buf[4096];
> +
> +	igt_debugfs_simple_read(data->debugfs_fd, "i915_capabilities",
> +				buf, sizeof(buf));
> +	return strstr(buf, "is_dgfx: yes");
>  }
>  
> -static void check_dc9(data_t *data, int dc_target, int prev_dc)
> +static int read_runtime_suspended_time(int drm_fd)
>  {
> -	igt_assert_f(dc9_wait_entry(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target, prev_dc, 3000),
> -			"DC9 state is not achieved\n%s:\n%s\n", RPM_STATUS,
> -			data->debugfs_dump = igt_sysfs_get(data->debugfs_fd, RPM_STATUS));
> +	struct pci_device *i915;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	i915 = igt_device_get_pci_device(drm_fd);
> +	ret = igt_pm_get_runtime_suspended_time(i915);
> +	igt_assert_lte(0, ret);
> +
> +	return ret;
>  }
>  
> -static bool is_dgfx(data_t *data)
> +static bool dc9_wait_entry(data_t *data, int dc_target, int prev_dc,
> +			   int prev_rpm, int seconds)

While at it: s/seconds/msecs/

>  {
> -	char buf[4096];
> +	bool ret1 = false, ret2 = true;
>  
> -	igt_debugfs_simple_read(data->debugfs_fd, "i915_capabilities",
> -				buf, sizeof(buf));
> -	return strstr(buf, "is_dgfx: yes");

Could you avoid the movement of is_dgfx() in this patch (if need to move
maybe do that in the first patch) which would make the diff more
readble?

> +	/* runtime suspended residency should increment once DC9 is achieved */
> +	ret1 = igt_wait(read_runtime_suspended_time(data->drm_fd) >
> +			prev_rpm, seconds, 100);

If the above fails the polling below is redundant, extending the timeout
unnecessarily. The two polling could be combined perhaps to further
reduce the timeout.

> +	/*
> +	 * since we do not have DC9 counter,
> +	 * so we rely on dc5/dc6 counter reset
> +	 * to check if display engine was in DC9.
> +	 * skip this condition for DG1 and DG2
> +	 * platforms.
> +	 */
> +	if(!(IS_DG1(data->devid) || IS_DG2(data->devid)))
> +		ret2 = igt_wait(read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target) <
> +				prev_dc, seconds, 100);
> +
> +	return ret1 && ret2;
> +}
> +
> +static void check_dc9(data_t *data, int dc_target, int prev_dc, int prev_rpm)
> +{
> +	igt_assert_f(dc9_wait_entry(data, dc_target, prev_dc, prev_rpm, 3000),
> +		     "DC9 state is not achieved\n%s:\n%s\n", RPM_STATUS,
> +		     data->debugfs_dump = igt_sysfs_get(data->debugfs_fd, RPM_STATUS));
>  }
>  
>  static void setup_dc9_dpms(data_t *data, int dc_target)
>  {
> -	int prev_dc, sysfs_fd;
> +	int prev_dc, prev_rpm, sysfs_fd;
>  
>  	igt_require((sysfs_fd = open(KMS_HELPER, O_RDONLY)) >= 0);
>  	kms_poll_saved_state = igt_sysfs_get_boolean(sysfs_fd, "poll");
> @@ -444,14 +471,16 @@ static void setup_dc9_dpms(data_t *data, int dc_target)
>  	prev_dc = read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target);
>  	setup_dc_dpms(data);
>  	dpms_off(data);
> -	igt_skip_on_f(!(igt_wait(read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target) >
> +	if(!(IS_DG1(data->devid) || IS_DG2(data->devid)))
> +		igt_skip_on_f(!(igt_wait(read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target) >
>  				prev_dc, 3000, 100)), "Unable to enters shallow DC states\n");

The whole setup_dc_dpms/dpms_off/read_prev_dc/dpms_on/cleanup_dc_dpms
sequence should be skipped if prev_dc is not used anyway. Maybe worth
adding a DC9_RESETS_DC_COUNTERS macro instead of open-coding it here and
above.

>  	prev_dc = read_dc_counter(data->debugfs_fd, dc_target);
> +	prev_rpm = read_runtime_suspended_time(data->drm_fd);

After the above change this should be read out before dpms_off().

>  	dpms_on(data);
>  	cleanup_dc_dpms(data);
>  	dpms_off(data);
>  	sleep(1); /* wait for counters reset*/

Not added in this patch, but not sure why the above sleep is needed if
we poll for the same condition anyway.

> -	check_dc9(data, dc_target, prev_dc);
> +	check_dc9(data, dc_target, prev_dc, prev_rpm);
>  	dpms_on(data);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.25.1
>