[PATCH v1] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to check few debugfs entries
Peter Senna Tschudin
peter.senna at linux.intel.com
Wed Dec 18 09:36:30 UTC 2024
Hi Pravalika,
Two more cents.
On 18.12.2024 09:56, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> Hi Pravalika,
>
> Please see my comment below.
>
> On 17.12.2024 14:56, Pravalika Gurram wrote:
>> Read and dump below debugfs entries.
>> ggtt
>> register-save-restore
>> workarounds
>> default_lrc_rcs
>> default_lrc_ccs
>> default_lrc_bcs
>> default_lrc_vcs
>> default_lrc_vecs
>> hwconfig"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pravalika Gurram <pravalika.gurram at intel.com>
>> ---
>> tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c b/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c
>> index 700575031..bcbb5036a 100644
>> --- a/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c
>> +++ b/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c
>> @@ -162,6 +162,16 @@ test_gt(int fd, int gt_id)
>> "pat",
>> "mocs",
>> // "force_reset"
>> + "ggtt",
>> + "register-save-restore",
>> + "workarounds",
>> + "default_lrc_rcs",
>> + "default_lrc_ccs",
>> + "default_lrc_bcs",
>> + "default_lrc_vcs",
>> + "default_lrc_vecs",
>> + "hwconfig"
>> +
1. Are we confident that these will always be present? I am asking because
of the igt_assert() that will abort when an entry is not found.
2. Why don't we simply scan for available files instead of hard coding
expected files?
Thanks
More information about the igt-dev
mailing list