Re: [PATCH v1] tests/intel/xe_debugfs: Extend gt test to check few debugfs entries

[Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Pravalika,

Two more cents.

On 18.12.2024 09:56, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> Hi Pravalika,
> 
> Please see my comment below.
> 
> On 17.12.2024 14:56, 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"
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pravalika Gurram <pravalika.gurram@intel.com>
>> ---
>>  tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 46 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c b/tests/intel/xe_debugfs.c
>> index 700575031..bcbb5036a 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"
>> +

1. Are we confident that these will always be present? I am asking because
   of the igt_assert() that will abort when an entry is not found.

2. Why don't we simply scan for available files instead of hard coding
   expected files?

Thanks