[PATCH i-g-t] tests/intel/xe_gt_freq: Add a wait after gt reset

[Poosa, Karthik]

On 31-07-2024 16:06, Riana Tauro wrote:
> Hi Karthik
>
> On 7/30/2024 5:20 PM, Karthik Poosa wrote:
>> After reset min and max takes sometime to get set to rpn.
>> So add a wait of 100ms after gt reset before reading
>> min and max frequencies.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Karthik Poosa <karthik.poosa at intel.com>
>> ---
>>   tests/intel/xe_gt_freq.c | 7 +++++++
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_gt_freq.c b/tests/intel/xe_gt_freq.c
>> index 93ebb5ed0..718f720c0 100644
>> --- a/tests/intel/xe_gt_freq.c
>> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_gt_freq.c
>> @@ -33,6 +33,12 @@
>>    */
>>   #define ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000
>>   +/*
>> + * After gt reset, min and max freq may take sometime to set to rpn.
>> + * So adding a wait of 100ms after reset.
>> + */
>> +#define GT_RESET_FREQ_LATENCY_US 100000
>
> Both ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US  and  GT_RESET_FREQ_LATENCY_US  are same values.
>
> Why not rename ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US to LATENCY_US and use that instead?

ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US is used between set_freq and get freq without gt 
reset in between.

GT_RESET_FREQ_LATENCY_US is delay after reset, so kept it as a separate 
macro.

>
> Thanks,
> Riana
>> +
>>   static int set_freq(int fd, int gt_id, const char *freq_name, 
>> uint32_t freq)
>>   {
>>       int ret = -EAGAIN;
>> @@ -318,6 +324,7 @@ static void test_reset(int fd, int gt_id, int 
>> cycles)
>>                    "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);
>>             xe_force_gt_reset_async(fd, gt_id);
>> +        usleep(GT_RESET_FREQ_LATENCY_US);
>>             igt_assert_f(get_freq(fd, gt_id, "min") == rpn,
>>                    "Failed after %d good cycles\n", i);