[Intel-gfx] [PATCH igt] igt/gem_spin_batch: Skip overloading aliased BSD engines

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 21/12/2017 10:53, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2017-12-21 10:02:06)
>>
>> On 20/12/2017 17:56, Chris Wilson wrote:
>>> BSD == BSD1 or BSD2. Since we already emit spinners to the explicit BSD
>>> rins, skip the aliased ring.
>>>
>>> Bugzilla: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104352
>>> Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
>>> ---
>>>    tests/gem_spin_batch.c | 2 +-
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/gem_spin_batch.c b/tests/gem_spin_batch.c
>>> index 896311304..cccba75a7 100644
>>> --- a/tests/gem_spin_batch.c
>>> +++ b/tests/gem_spin_batch.c
>>> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static void spin_on_all_engines(int fd, unsigned int timeout_sec)
>>>        unsigned engine;
>>>    
>>>        for_each_engine(fd, engine) {
>>> -             if (engine == 0)
>>> +             if (engine == 0 || engine == I915_EXEC_BSD)
>>
>> You forget the other annoyance of the VCS selection uAPI where explicit
>> flags can only be used on dual-VCS platforms? :) So I think you need to
>> skip on engine & I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1, unless I am missing something.
> 
> No way, the uapi can't be that stupid. It is.

Ugh my suggestion was even incorrect. The skipping criteria needs to be 
branched based on HAS_BSD2.

if (HAS_BSD2())
	skip I915_EXEC_BSD
else
	skip I915_EXEC_BSD_RING1

Can I mention again my suggestion of making for_each_engine iterate 
engines, and not uABI flags?

That would solve multiple issues with one big swat. Maybe it would add 
some new ones, like if we miss some ABI testing coverage, but I still 
think exercising engines and exercising ABI is better separated.

> Can we do the s/for_each_engine/for_each_ring/ yet?

Doesn't ring a bell - what is the name change supposed to signal?

Regards,

Tvrtko