Hi Sundaresan,,
On 2024-08-06 at 11:50:46 +0530, Sundaresan, Sujaritha wrote:

On 8/1/2024 5:15 PM, Kamil Konieczny wrote:

Hi Sujaritha,
On 2024-07-30 at 17:05:08 +0530, Sujaritha Sundaresan wrote:

small nit about subject, you wrote:

[PATCH i-g-t, v3] tests/intel: Add tests to run suspend without display

imho this should be:

[PATCH i-g-t, v3] tests/intel/xe_pm: Add tests for suspend without display

More nits below.

Hey Kamil,

Sure this change I can make.

Add tests to validate basic execution suspend/resume cycle
without display module to rule out display related issues
from the suspend/resume stack.

v2: Add normal reload cycle after running test (Anshuman)

v3: Rebase

Signed-off-by: Sujaritha Sundaresan <sujaritha.sundaresan@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Anshuman Gupta <anshuman.gupta@intel.com>
---
  tests/intel/xe_pm.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 34 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_pm.c b/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
index 8b115e2f6..03f742265 100644
--- a/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
+++ b/tests/intel/xe_pm.c
@@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
  #include "igt.h"
  #include "lib/igt_device.h"
+#include "lib/igt_kmod.h"
  #include "lib/igt_pm.h"
  #include "lib/igt_sysfs.h"
  #include "lib/igt_syncobj.h"
@@ -229,6 +230,10 @@ static void close_fw_handle(int sig)
   * Description: suspend/autoresume on %arg[1] state and exec after RPM
   * Functionality: pm - %arg[1]
   *
+ * SUBTEST: %s-without-display
+ * Description: suspend/autoresume on %arg[1] state without display
+ * Functionality: pm - %arg[1]

I see you copy-pasted it but imho both Description and
Functionality documentation fields should be static, here and
in other places.
+cc Katarzyna Piecielska <katarzyna.piecielska@intel.com>

Hi Kamil,

Sorry I didn't get this change. This is inline with the rest of the file right ?

+ *
   * arg[1]:
   *
   * @s2idle:	s2idle
@@ -681,6 +686,7 @@ igt_main
  	struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance *hwe;
  	device_t device;
  	uint32_t d3cold_allowed;
+	const char *opts;
  	int sysfs_fd;
  	const struct s_state {
@@ -757,6 +763,34 @@ igt_main
  					  NO_RPM, 0);
  		}
+		igt_subtest_f("%s-without-display", s->name) {
+
+			if (!drmModeGetResources(device.fd_xe))
+				return;

Why 'return' here?! Imho this should be checked in fixture
or be a skip. Or other way around - what about a headless board
or one without any connected display?

Regards,
Kamil

I think this patch idea sort stemmed from the cases where we have a display
connected and

want to make sure that the suspend/resume issues are not being caused by the
display.

But would you suggest expanding the test to have the headless/no display
situations? If so what changes are you suggesting for that ?

Thanks,

Suja

I would suggest turn this into a igt_skip_on_f(), not a return.

Regards,
Kamil

Sure I will switch this to

igt_skip_on(!drmModeGetResources(device.fd_xe))

Thanks,

Suja

+
+			xe_for_each_engine(device.fd_xe, hwe) {
+
+				igt_debug("Reload w/o display\n");
+
+				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Unloading Xe\n");
+				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_unload(), 0);
+
+				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Re-loading Xe without display\n");
+				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_load("enable_display=0"), 0);
+
+				test_exec(device, hwe, 1, 2, s->state,
+					  NO_RPM, 0);
+
+				igt_debug("Reload as normal\n");
+
+				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Unloading Xe\n");
+				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_unload(), 0);
+
+				igt_kmsg(KMSG_INFO "Re-loading Xe\n");
+				igt_assert_eq(igt_xe_driver_load(opts), 0);
+			}
+		}
+
  		for (const struct vm_op *op = vm_op; op->name; op++) {
  			igt_subtest_f("%s-vm-bind-%s", s->name, op->name) {
  				xe_for_each_engine(device.fd_xe, hwe)
-- 
2.34.1