[PATCH v1] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to check few debugfs entries

[Gurram, Pravalika]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gurram, Pravalika
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 3:42 PM
> To: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna at linux.intel.com>; igt-
> dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to check few
> debugfs entries
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna at linux.intel.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2024 3:07 PM
> > To: Gurram, Pravalika <pravalika.gurram at intel.com>; igt-
> > dev at lists.freedesktop.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to
> > check few debugfs entries
> >
> > 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.
> >
> From kernel code point of view these debugfs need to be created on device
> boot up
> 
> static const struct drm_info_list debugfs_list[] = {
>         {"hw_engines", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> hw_engines},
>         {"force_reset", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> force_reset},
>         {"force_reset_sync", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> force_reset_sync},
>         {"sa_info", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = sa_info},
>         {"topology", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = topology},
>         {"steering", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = steering},
>         {"ggtt", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = ggtt},
>         {"powergate_info", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> powergate_info},
>         {"register-save-restore", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> register_save_restore},
>         {"workarounds", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> workarounds},
>         {"pat", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = pat},
>         {"mocs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = mocs},
>         {"default_lrc_rcs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> rcs_default_lrc},
>         {"default_lrc_ccs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> ccs_default_lrc},
>         {"default_lrc_bcs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> bcs_default_lrc},
>         {"default_lrc_vcs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> vcs_default_lrc},
>         {"default_lrc_vecs", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> vecs_default_lrc},
>         {"stats", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data =
> xe_gt_stats_print_info},
>         {"hwconfig", .show = xe_gt_debugfs_simple_show, .data = hwconfig}, };
> > 2. Why don't we simply scan for available files instead of hard coding
> >    expected files?
> >
> > Thanks
> The test scope itself is like we need to check whether hard-coded entries
> that are created are present or not if not assert.
> and these changes are to improve the code coverage
> FYI: https://jira.devtools.intel.com/browse/VLK-67482?filter=-1
> 
> -- Pravlika
@Brost, Matthew could you please comment on question asked by peter