Re: [PATCH i-g-t] lib/xe: Use proper GT lookup in xe_gt_get_tile_id()

[Dnyaneshwar Bhadane <dnyaneshwar.bhadane@Intel.com>]

On 01-Sep-26 1:53 AM, Matt Roper wrote:
> xe_gt_get_tile_id() should lookup the GT record associated with a GT ID
> via drm_xe_get_gt() rather than directly indexing into gt_list[].  The
> ID may not always match the array index on future platforms if we ever
> have cases where GT IDs are non-contiguous.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matt Roper <matthew.d.roper@intel.com>
> ---
>   lib/xe/xe_query.c | 8 +++++---
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/xe/xe_query.c b/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> index 68e60ddc7..0b309be03 100644
> --- a/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> +++ b/lib/xe/xe_query.c
> @@ -1070,14 +1070,16 @@ bool xe_is_main_gt(int fd, int gt)
>    */
>   uint16_t xe_gt_get_tile_id(int fd, int gt)
>   {
> +	const struct drm_xe_gt *gt_data;
>   	struct xe_device *xe_dev;
>   
>   	xe_dev = find_in_cache(fd);
> -
>   	igt_assert(xe_dev);
> -	igt_assert(gt < xe_number_gt(fd));
>   
> -	return xe_dev->gt_list->gt_list[gt].tile_id;
> +	gt_data = drm_xe_get_gt(xe_dev, gt);
> +	igt_assert(gt_data);
> +
> +	return gt_data->tile_id;
Hi Matt,

Could we use xe_get_tile() directly having assert on negative return?

Dnyaneshwar>   }
>   
>   /**
> 
> ---
> base-commit: d822caac6e3589c05fffb63fbfc89134b0f7ccb3
> change-id: 20260831-gtlookup_noncontig-13ef96a45b4f
> 
> Best regards,