[PATCH i-g-t, v3] tests/intel: Add tests to run suspend without display

[Kamil Konieczny]

Hi Sujaritha,
On 2024-07-30 at 17:05:08 +0530, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote:

small nit about subject, you wrote:

[PATCH i-g-t, v3] tests/intel: Add tests to run suspend without display

imho this should be:

[PATCH i-g-t, v3] tests/intel/xe_pm: Add tests for suspend without display

More nits below.

> Add tests to validate basic execution suspend/resume cycle
> without display module to rule out display related issues
> from the suspend/resume stack.
> 
> v2: Add normal reload cycle after running test (Anshuman)
> 
> v3: Rebase
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan at intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/intel/xe_pm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_pm.c b/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
> index 8b115e2f6..03f742265 100644
> --- a/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
>  
>  #include "igt.h"
>  #include "lib/igt_device.h"
> +#include "lib/igt_kmod.h"
>  #include "lib/igt_pm.h"
>  #include "lib/igt_sysfs.h"
>  #include "lib/igt_syncobj.h"
> @@ -229,6 +230,10 @@ static void close_fw_handle(int sig)
>   * Description: suspend/autoresume on %arg[1] state and exec after RPM
>   * Functionality: pm - %arg[1]
>   *
> + * SUBTEST: %s-without-display
> + * Description: suspend/autoresume on %arg[1] state without display
> + * Functionality: pm - %arg[1]

I see you copy-pasted it but imho both Description and
Functionality documentation fields should be static, here and
in other places.
+cc Katarzyna Piecielska <katarzyna.piecielska at intel.com>

> + *
>   * arg[1]:
>   *
>   * @s2idle:	s2idle
> @@ -681,6 +686,7 @@ igt_main
>  	struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *hwe;
>  	device_t device;
>  	uint32_t d3cold_allowed;
> +	const char *opts;
>  	int sysfs_fd;
>  
>  	const struct s_state {
> @@ -757,6 +763,34 @@ igt_main
>  					  NO_RPM, 0);
>  		}
>  
> +		igt_subtest_f("%s-without-display", s->name) {
> +
> +			if (!drmModeGetResources(device.fd_xe))
> +				return;

Why 'return' here?! Imho this should be checked in fixture
or be a skip. Or other way around - what about a headless board
or one without any connected display?

Regards,
Kamil

> +
> +			xe_for_each_engine(device.fd_xe, hwe) {
> +
> +				igt_debug("Reload w/o display\n");
> +
> +				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Unloading Xe\n");
> +				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_unload(), 0);
> +
> +				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Re-loading Xe without display\n");
> +				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_load("enable_display=0"), 0);
> +
> +				test_exec(device, hwe, 1, 2, s->state,
> +					  NO_RPM, 0);
> +
> +				igt_debug("Reload as normal\n");
> +
> +				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Unloading Xe\n");
> +				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_unload(), 0);
> +
> +				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Re-loading Xe\n");
> +				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_load(opts), 0);
> +			}
> +		}
> +
>  		for (const struct vm_op *op = vm_op; op->name; op++) {
>  			igt_subtest_f("%s-vm-bind-%s", s->name, op->name) {
>  				xe_for_each_engine(device.fd_xe, hwe)
> -- 
> 2.34.1
>