[igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/2] i915_pm_freq_api: Add some basic SLPC igt tests

[Belgaumkar, Vinay]

On 3/31/2023 4:56 PM, Dixit, Ashutosh wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 19:00:28 -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote:
> Hi Vinay,
>
>> +/*
>> + * Too many intermediate components and steps before freq is adjusted
>> + * Specially if workload is under execution, so let's wait 100 ms.
>> + */
>> +#define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000
>> +
>> +static uint32_t get_freq(int dirfd, uint8_t id)
>> +{
>> +	uint32_t val;
>> +
>> +	igt_require(igt_sysfs_rps_scanf(dirfd, id, "%u", &val) == 1);
> igt_assert?
ok.
>
>> +static void test_freq_basic_api(int dirfd, int gt)
>> +{
>> +	uint32_t rpn, rp0, rpe;
>> +
>> +	/* Save frequencies */
>> +	rpn = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RPn_FREQ_MHZ);
>> +	rp0 = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP0_FREQ_MHZ);
>> +	rpe = get_freq(dirfd, RPS_RP1_FREQ_MHZ);
>> +	igt_info("System min freq: %dMHz; max freq: %dMHz\n", rpn, rp0);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Negative bound tests
>> +	 * RPn is the floor
>> +	 * RP0 is the ceiling
>> +	 */
>> +	igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
>> +	igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
>> +	igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MIN_FREQ_MHZ, rpn - 1) < 0);
> Is this supposed to be RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ?
We could do this check for max as well. But this is trying to see if min 
can be set to below rpn.
>
>> +	igt_assert(set_freq(dirfd, RPS_MAX_FREQ_MHZ, rp0 + 1) < 0);
>> +
> After addressing the above, this is:
>
> Reviewed-by: Ashutosh Dixit <ashutosh.dixit at intel.com>
>
> Also, before merging it would be good to see the results of the new
> tests. So could you add a HAX patch adding the new tests to
> fast-feedback.testlist and resend the series?

Sure, will do. Thanks for the review.

Vinay.

>
> Thanks.
> --
> Ashutosh