[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] drm/i915/selftests: Skip the execlists tests on !execlists machines

[Chris Wilson]

Quoting Chris Wilson (2018-05-04 17:33:57)
> Quoting Tvrtko Ursulin (2018-05-04 17:25:27)
> > 
> > On 04/05/2018 13:42, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > > Ignore the tests looking at the innards of execlists and its submission
> > > tasklets on machines that don't support execlists!
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris at chris-wilson.co.uk>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c | 4 ++++
> > >   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c
> > > index ee7e22d18ff8..b7460b5dd4f7 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/selftests/intel_lrc.c
> > > @@ -505,5 +505,9 @@ int intel_execlists_live_selftests(struct drm_i915_private *i915)
> > >               SUBTEST(live_preempt),
> > >               SUBTEST(live_late_preempt),
> > >       };
> > > +
> > > +     if (!HAS_EXECLISTS(i915))
> > > +             return 0;
> > > +
> > >       return i915_subtests(tests, i915);
> > >   }
> > > 
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> > 
> > Is it a mystery why it wasn't discovered when tests were added?
> 
> No, they do feature tests more precise than HAS_EXECLISTS, namely
> preemption. Just later on I'm planing some other tests that want
> the general guard, hence nipping it in the bud before you ask for it to
> be split out of the larger patch.

And pushed, thanks for the review.
-Chris