Re: [i-g-t, v2] tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue: Check PXP is rejected on multi-queue

[Niranjana Vishwanathapura <niranjana.vishwanathapura@intel.com>]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2026 at 03:05:37AM +0800, Jagmeet Randhawa wrote:
>HWDRM is the only supported PXP type and is display related, so it
>cannot be combined with a multi-queue exec queue group. Extend the
>sanity subtest to create a multi-queue exec queue with the PXP HWDRM
>property chained and verify the kernel rejects the combination.
>
>When PXP is supported the combination must fail with -EINVAL; when
>PXP is unsupported the PXP extension fails first with -ENODEV.
>The expected error is selected based on xe_wait_for_pxp_init(),
>so the test passes on platforms with and without PXP.
>

Require 'v2: <changes done in v2>' tag.
I think it is fine for now.

>Signed-off-by: Jagmeet Randhawa <jagmeet.randhawa@intel.com>
>---
> tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c b/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>index 9b41f87c7..6aa1fd5e4 100644
>--- a/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>+++ b/tests/intel/xe_exec_multi_queue.c
>@@ -65,6 +65,11 @@ __test_sanity(int fd, int gt, int class, bool preempt_mode)
> 		.property = DRM_XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PRIORITY,
> 		.value = XE_EXEC_QUEUE_PRIORITY_NORMAL,
> 	};
>+	struct drm_xe_ext_set_property pxp_hwdrm = {
>+		.base.name = DRM_XE_EXEC_QUEUE_EXTENSION_SET_PROPERTY,
>+		.property = DRM_XE_EXEC_QUEUE_SET_PROPERTY_PXP_TYPE,
>+		.value = DRM_XE_PXP_TYPE_HWDRM,
>+	};
> 	struct drm_xe_engine_class_instance vm_bind_eci = {
> 		.engine_class = DRM_XE_ENGINE_CLASS_VM_BIND,
> 	};
>@@ -119,6 +124,18 @@ __test_sanity(int fd, int gt, int class, bool preempt_mode)
> 	multi_queue.base.next_extension = to_user_pointer(&multi_queue);
> 	igt_assert_eq(__xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 1, 1, eci, ext, &val), -EINVAL);
>
>+	/*
>+	 * HWDRM is the only supported PXP type and is display-related, so it
>+	 * cannot be combined with multi-queue. When PXP is supported the combo
>+	 * must be rejected with -EINVAL; when unsupported the PXP extension
>+	 * fails first with -ENODEV.
>+	 */

NIT...Missing some commas.

'When PXP is supported, the combo must be...'
and
'when unsupported, the PXP extension...'

Also, when PXP is not supported, I don't think it will always return -ENODEV.
It depends on the order of the extensions (with new change in KMD patch).
more below....

>+	multi_queue.base.next_extension = to_user_pointer(&pxp_hwdrm);
>+	if (xe_wait_for_pxp_init(fd) == 0)
>+		igt_assert_eq(__xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 1, 1, eci, ext, &val), -EINVAL);
>+	else
>+		igt_assert_eq(__xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, 1, 1, eci, ext, &val), -ENODEV);
>+

With KMD patch update, given order of properties is multi-queue first followed by pxp,
doesn't it should always return -EINVAL? We should get -ENODEV only wehen the order of
properties is PXP followed by multi-queue. Right?

Niranjana

> 	/* Setting other queue properties are valid for Q0 */
> 	multi_queue.base.next_extension = to_user_pointer(&priority);
> 	exec_queues[0] = xe_exec_queue_create(fd, vm, eci, ext);
>-- 
>2.53.0
>