[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/pm_rpm: Use the quick mode by default

[Arkadiusz Hiler]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 02:23:42PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> pm_rpm is one of the main offenders for long runtime in our full igt
> run. And hey, there's a quick option already, so make it the default.
> 
> This means there's yet another way to enable stress tests, we really
> need to standardize this somehow. Or shred the stress-tests we really
> don't want/need anymore.

Having a standarized way would be a good thing.
We should look into that.


> v2: Fixup the entire help text (David).
> 
> Cc: David Weinehall <david.weinehall at linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Paulo Zanoni <paulo.r.zanoni at intel.com>
> Cc: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at intel.com>
> ---
>  tests/pm_rpm.c | 8 ++++----
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/pm_rpm.c b/tests/pm_rpm.c
> index 1873c9017b6e..aaf610321edd 100644
> --- a/tests/pm_rpm.c
> +++ b/tests/pm_rpm.c
> @@ -1852,14 +1852,14 @@ static void fences_subtest(bool dpms)
>  	igt_assert(munmap(buf_ptr, params.fb.size) == 0);
>  }
>  
> -int rounds = 40;
> +int rounds = 10;
>  bool stay = false;
>  
>  static int opt_handler(int opt, int opt_index, void *data)
>  {
>  	switch (opt) {
>  	case 'q':
> -		rounds = 10;
> +		rounds = 50;
>  		break;
>  	case 's':
>  		stay = true;
> @@ -1874,10 +1874,10 @@ static int opt_handler(int opt, int opt_index, void *data)
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
>  	const char *help_str =
> -	       "  --quick\t\tMake the stress-tests not stressful, for quick regression testing.\n"
> +	       "  --stress\t\tMake the stress-tests more stressful.\n"
>  	       "  --stay\t\tDisable all screen and try to go into runtime pm. Useful for debugging.";
>  	static struct option long_options[] = {
> -		{"quick", 0, 0, 'q'},
> +		{"stress", 0, 0, 'q'},
>  		{"stay", 0, 0, 's'},

I don't like that we repurpose 'q' here, as it is confusing in context
of this patch.

I get that we don't have short options so it's not affecting the outside world.

I would be more happy with other letter, but 's', which would be best is
already taken, then maybe 'l' for "long"?

Anyway, either with 'q' or 'l':
Reviewed-by: Arkadiusz Hiler <arkadiusz.hiler at intel.com>

-- 
Cheers,
Arek