From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6B6210E0F8 for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2023 17:50:08 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3bb30a92-ba3d-49fa-9bcc-18d3ff09cf87@intel.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2023 09:50:01 -0800 Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t 2/2] test/intel/xe_guc_pc: Fix freq_low_max test Content-Language: en-US To: Badal Nilawar , References: <20231124102946.2650848-1-badal.nilawar@intel.com> <20231124102946.2650848-3-badal.nilawar@intel.com> From: "Belgaumkar, Vinay" In-Reply-To: <20231124102946.2650848-3-badal.nilawar@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On 11/24/2023 2:29 AM, Badal Nilawar wrote: > freq_low_max test is intended to validate GuC PC (SLPC) behaviour > when max freq set to less than min freq. As workloads are not being > run validating cur freq is enough. > > Signed-off-by: Badal Nilawar > --- > tests/intel/xe_guc_pc.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_guc_pc.c b/tests/intel/xe_guc_pc.c > index c23017501..70548ba0e 100644 > --- a/tests/intel/xe_guc_pc.c > +++ b/tests/intel/xe_guc_pc.c > @@ -220,7 +220,6 @@ static void test_freq_low_max(int fd, int gt_id) > igt_assert(set_freq(fd, gt_id, "max", rpn) > 0); > usleep(ACT_FREQ_LATENCY_US); > igt_assert(get_freq(fd, gt_id, "cur") == rpe); > - igt_assert(get_freq(fd, gt_id, "act") == rpe); might be worth keeping this check with if (!in_rc6()). We hardly check for actual frequency, this will be a good way to ensure we can even get efficient freq. Thanks, Vinay. > } > > /**