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

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 07:22:31PM +0100, Kamil Konieczny wrote:
>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.

ok,  Acked-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com> in doing that.

Lucas De Marchi