Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t v7] i915/gem_mocs_settings: Add mocs table for icelake

Kumar Valsan, Prathap
2019-03-18T13:17:27Z

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 01:06:13PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Quoting Kumar Valsan, Prathap (2019-03-18 13:10:43)
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 03:15:55PM -0400, Prathap Kumar Valsan wrote:
> > > +static void isolation_test(int fd, unsigned engine)
> > > +{
> > > + uint32_t ctx[2] = { gem_context_create(fd), gem_context_create(fd) };
> > > +
> > > + /* Any writes by one normal client should not affect a second client */
> > > + write_dirty_mocs(fd, engine, ctx[0], false);
> > > + check_mocs_values(fd, engine, ctx[1], false);
> > > +
> > > + for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ctx); i++)
> > > + gem_context_destroy(fd, ctx[i]);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > igt_main
> > > {
> > > const struct intel_execution_engine *e;
> > > @@ -490,6 +559,14 @@ igt_main
> > > }
> > > }
> > > }
> > > +
> > > + igt_subtest_f("mocs-isolation-%s",
> > > + e->name) {
> > > + gem_require_contexts(fd);
> > > +
> > > + isolation_test(fd, e->exec_id | e->flags);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > }
> > Chris,
> > Added isolation_test as a subtest. Can i get a r-b if this looks good to
> > you.
>
> Yup, that looks like what I expect we need to verify the ABI that mocs
> values are independent without overburdening ourselves with actual HW
> implementation.
>
> Reviewed-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
> -Chris

Thanks for the reviews.

-Prathap