From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga07.intel.com (mga07.intel.com [134.134.136.100]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EEE510E7CF for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2022 06:54:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:54:34 -0700 Message-ID: <8735i1ac0l.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> From: "Dixit, Ashutosh" To: "Gupta, Anshuman" In-Reply-To: <1e597a2232df4c51ac6a2ac8112784bf@intel.com> References: <20220422125912.6862-1-anshuman.gupta@intel.com> <87y1zx6qzs.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <6b377d0333494eb1940bd2f96ba15cb8@intel.com> <874k2haf9t.wl-ashutosh.dixit@intel.com> <1e597a2232df4c51ac6a2ac8112784bf@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] lib/intel_device_info: Add IS_DGFX() support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: "igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" , "Vivi, Rodrigo" Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 23:10:23 -0700, Gupta, Anshuman wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 05:59:12 -0700, Anshuman Gupta wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Currently IGT is lacking IS_DGFX() macro support. > > > > > There are some power features like D3Cold are only supported on > > > > > discrete card. So IGT test/tools specific to D3Cold requires to > > > > > consume IS_DGFX(). > > > > > Adding a is_dgfx field in intel_device_info and initializing it > > > > > for DG1. All future discrete platform would require to initialize > > > > > this field. > > > > > > > > #define IS_DGFX(fd) gem_has_lmem(fd) ? > > > > > > > > gem_has_lmem() is already pretty widely used so maybe we should not > > > > introduce another way to achieve the same goal? > > > > > > Before introducing this , I thought on using gem_has_lmem. > > > But I was not sure in case every discrete platform mandatory to have lmem > > region. > > > If it is guaranteed that every discrete platform will have lmem memory region > > ? > > > I will drop this patch. > > > > So not sure what will happen in the future but till now and in the forseeable > > future all dGfx platforms have LMEM, so gem_has_lmem seems fine. > It seems better to carry with gem_has_lmem(), as IS_DGFX() requires to populate device info fields. > This patch spined off from series https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/102780/ > I will use gem_has_lmem() instead of IS_DGFX(). > @rodrigo what is your opinion about it ? > > > > I think if we introduce IS_DGFX() as in this patch, we should have an additional > > patch to convert all tests using gem_has_lmem() to IS_DGFX() so that we don't > > have multiple ways of tests deciding if something should run for dGfx. > > > > Or maybe both are also ok? So lmem related tests should use gem_has_lmem() > > and non LMEM related tests should use IS_DGFX()? > > Actually, both of these methods even are not sufficient, if needed prior > to open the drm_fd. Ex. igt_device_find_first_i915_discrete_card() > checks the igpu b:d:f, which breaks on one of real time issue. > https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/igt-gpu-tools/-/issues/94 In that case maybe such API's which attempt to do this and don't work in *all* cases should be deleted and something new provided? Anyway this seems to be a different issue to what we were discussing? Thanks. > > > > > So if we want to merge this let's look at other tests which are presently using > > gem_has_lmem() and see if any need to be converted over to IS_DGFX(). Or to > > keep things simple just use gem_has_lmem() for now? > > > > Thanks.