From: "Grzegorzek, Dominik" <dominik.grzegorzek@intel.com>
To: "igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org" <igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"Maslak, Jan" <jan.maslak@intel.com>
Cc: "Roper, Matthew D" <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>,
"Cavitt, Jonathan" <jonathan.cavitt@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] lib/xe_query: add xe_hwconfig_lookup_value() helper
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 09:13:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8fa0c3c95b39349d40d73ce41811ccfafdd6c275.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241120222850.1497784-3-jan.maslak@intel.com>
On Wed, 2024-11-20 at 22:28 +0000, Jan Maslak wrote:
Hi Jan,
> Add a new helper function, xe_hw_config_lookup_value(), that
> returns a pointer to the value of a given hwconfig attribute.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Maslak <jan.maslak@intel.com>
> ---
> lib/xe/xe_query.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/xe/xe_query.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/lib/xe/xe_query.c b/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> index 49bed033b..73c8ed948 100644
> --- a/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> +++ b/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> @@ -839,6 +839,50 @@ uint16_t xe_gt_get_tile_id(int fd, int gt)
> return xe_dev->gt_list->gt_list[gt].tile_id;
> }
>
> +/**
> + * xe_hwconfig_lookup_value:
> + * @fd: xe device fd
> + * @attribute: hwconfig attribute id
> + * @len: pointer to store length of the value
> + *
> + * Returns a pointer to the value of the hwconfig attribute @attribute and
> + * writes the length of the value to @len.
Nit: Imo it would be worth to underline that len is in units of uint32_t,
not as someone could think in bytes. Maybe sth like:
* writes the number of uint32_t elements idicating the lenght of the value to @len.
> + * The caller is responsible for freeing the returned pointer.
> + */
> +uint32_t *xe_hwconfig_lookup_value(int fd, enum intel_hwconfig attribute, uint32_t *len)
> +{
> + struct xe_device *xe_dev;
> + uint32_t *hwconfig;
> + uint32_t pos, hwconfig_len;
> + uint32_t *value = NULL;
> +
> + xe_dev = find_in_cache(fd);
> + igt_assert(xe_dev);
> +
> + hwconfig = xe_dev->hwconfig;
> + igt_assert(hwconfig);
> +
> + /* Extract the value from the hwconfig */
> + pos = 0;
> + hwconfig_len = xe_dev->hwconfig_size / sizeof(uint32_t);
> + while (pos + 2 < hwconfig_len) {
> + uint32_t attribute_id = hwconfig[pos];
> + uint32_t attribute_len = hwconfig[pos + 1];
> + uint32_t *attribute_data = &hwconfig[pos + 2];
> +
> + if (attribute_id == attribute) {
> + value = malloc(attribute_len * sizeof(uint32_t));
> + igt_assert(value);
> + memcpy(value, attribute_data, attribute_len * sizeof(uint32_t));
> + *len = attribute_len;
> + break;
I think we could just return an address to cached hwconfig as it remains valid until
the last user calls drm_close_driver(). Caller would be no longer responsible for
freeing returned pointer.
Imo, your apprach is a little bit cleaner, however looking at other simillar
cases (e.g. xe_mem_region, xe_engine) it looks like the preference is
different. I would propose to make it coherent with behaviour already present in
that library.
Regards,
Dominik
> + }
> + pos += 2 + attribute_len;
> + }
> +
> + return value;
> +}
> +
> igt_constructor
> {
> xe_device_cache_init();
> diff --git a/lib/xe/xe_query.h b/lib/xe/xe_query.h
> index f8836578e..30ea5ad41 100644
> --- a/lib/xe/xe_query.h
> +++ b/lib/xe/xe_query.h
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> #include "igt_aux.h"
> #include "igt_list.h"
> #include "igt_sizes.h"
> +#include "intel_hwconfig_types.h"
>
> #define XE_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT SZ_4K
> #define XE_DEFAULT_ALIGNMENT_64K SZ_64K
> @@ -118,6 +119,7 @@ struct drm_xe_engine *xe_find_engine_by_class(int fd, uint16_t engine_class);
> bool xe_has_media_gt(int fd);
> bool xe_is_media_gt(int fd, int gt);
> uint16_t xe_gt_get_tile_id(int fd, int gt);
> +uint32_t *xe_hwconfig_lookup_value(int fd, enum intel_hwconfig attribute, uint32_t *len);
>
> struct xe_device *xe_device_get(int fd);
> void xe_device_put(int fd);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-26 9:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-20 22:28 [PATCH 0/3] tests/xe_eudebug_online: update thread count handling in query_attention_bitmask_size() Jan Maslak
2024-11-20 22:28 ` [PATCH 1/3] lib/xe_query: add hwconfig to xe_device Jan Maslak
2024-11-26 8:34 ` Grzegorzek, Dominik
2024-11-20 22:28 ` [PATCH 2/3] lib/xe_query: add xe_hwconfig_lookup_value() helper Jan Maslak
2024-11-26 9:13 ` Grzegorzek, Dominik [this message]
2024-11-26 9:16 ` Grzegorzek, Dominik
2024-11-20 22:28 ` [PATCH 3/3] tests/xe_eudebug_online: update thread count handling in query_attention_bitmask_size() Jan Maslak
2024-11-21 10:18 ` Grzegorzek, Dominik
2024-11-20 22:54 ` ✗ GitLab.Pipeline: warning for tests/xe_eudebug_online: update thread count handling in query_attention_bitmask_size() (rev2) Patchwork
2024-11-20 23:19 ` ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2024-11-21 6:43 ` ✗ Xe.CI.Full: failure " Patchwork
2024-11-24 8:17 ` ✗ i915.CI.Full: " Patchwork
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-11-28 13:05 [PATCH 0/3] tests/xe_eudebug_online: update thread count handling in query_attention_bitmask_size() Jan Maslak
2024-11-28 13:05 ` [PATCH 2/3] lib/xe_query: add xe_hwconfig_lookup_value() helper Jan Maslak
2024-11-28 13:10 ` Grzegorzek, Dominik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8fa0c3c95b39349d40d73ce41811ccfafdd6c275.camel@intel.com \
--to=dominik.grzegorzek@intel.com \
--cc=igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jan.maslak@intel.com \
--cc=jonathan.cavitt@intel.com \
--cc=matthew.d.roper@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox