[PATCH v2] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to check few debugfs entries

[Kamil Konieczny]

Hi Lucas,
On 2024-12-19 at 08:46:05 -0600, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 09:26:09AM +0530, 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
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost at intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Pravalika Gurram <pravalika.gurram at intel.com>
> > ---
> > tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c | 50 ++++++++++++----------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c b/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c
> > index 700575031..a31de41a4 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"
> > +
> > 	};
> > 	static const char * const expected_files_uc[] = {
> > 		"huc_info",
> > @@ -170,41 +180,11 @@ test_gt(int fd, int gt_id)
> > //		"guc_ct_selftest"
> > 	};
> > 
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/hw_engines", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/sa_info", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/steering", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/topology", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/pat", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/mocs", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/uc/guc_info", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/uc/huc_info", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> 
> these last 3 would be dropped from the dump. I don't think that's
> intentional, is it?
> 
> Ideally this would be more than 1 patch:
> 1) replace the copy and paste with the loop
> 2) add more files to be dumped
> 
> Also, it seems we are not actually running this
> "test" as part of BAT. I think that more than actually checking the
> asserts this would be useful to check the state of the hardware
> in the beginning of a BAT execution.
> 
> Lucas De Marchi
> 

Imho we should merge correct version 1 and then go to make clean,
shorter, correct improved test. It is better to have a coverage
now and make rework later.

Regards,
Kamil

> > -
> > -	sprintf(name, "gt%d/uc/guc_log", gt_id);
> > -	igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > -	igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > +	for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(expected_files); i++) {
> > +		sprintf(name, "gt%d/%s", gt_id, expected_files[i]);
> > +		igt_assert(igt_debugfs_exists(fd, name, O_RDONLY));
> > +		igt_debugfs_dump(fd, name);
> > +	}
> > 
> > 	sprintf(name, "/gt%d", gt_id);
> > 	validate_entries(fd, name, expected_files, ARRAY_SIZE(expected_files));
> > -- 
> > 2.34.1
> >