From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2023 06:51:03 -0400 From: Rodrigo Vivi To: Vinay Belgaumkar Message-ID: References: <20230325003442.1767568-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230325003442.1767568-1-vinay.belgaumkar@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/xe_guc_pc: Restore max freq first List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org, intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" List-ID: On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 05:34:42PM -0700, Vinay Belgaumkar wrote: > When min/max are both at RPn, restoring min back to 300 > will not work. Max needs to be increased first. why max needs to come first in this case? we should probably at least document so we don't forget it again... > Also, add > igt_assert() here, which would have caught the issue. I was going to ask if we should really add asserts inside the fixture or maybe using igt_require instead, but then I noticed more cases doing the assert... > > Cc: Rodrigo Vivi > Signed-off-by: Vinay Belgaumkar > --- > tests/xe/xe_guc_pc.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/xe/xe_guc_pc.c b/tests/xe/xe_guc_pc.c > index 60c93288..43bf6f48 100644 > --- a/tests/xe/xe_guc_pc.c > +++ b/tests/xe/xe_guc_pc.c > @@ -489,8 +489,8 @@ igt_main > > igt_fixture { > xe_for_each_gt(fd, gt) { > - set_freq(sysfs, gt, "min", stash_min); > - set_freq(sysfs, gt, "max", stash_max); > + igt_assert(set_freq(sysfs, gt, "max", stash_max) > 0); > + igt_assert(set_freq(sysfs, gt, "min", stash_min) > 0); > } > close(sysfs); > xe_device_put(fd); > -- > 2.38.1 >