From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ville =?iso-8859-1?Q?Syrj=E4l=E4?= Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: Add gem_exec_params Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:55:47 +0300 Message-ID: <20140424075547.GN18465@intel.com> References: <1398277922-25595-1-git-send-email-daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch> <1398321813.2045.241.camel@genxdev-ykzhao.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F7B989024 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 00:55:51 -0700 (PDT) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: intel-gfx-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "Intel-gfx" To: Daniel Vetter Cc: Intel Graphics Development List-Id: intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 09:18:24AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Zhao Yakui wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 12:32 -0600, Daniel Vetter wrote: > >> + igt_subtest("rel-constants-invalid") { > >> + execbuf.flags =3D I915_EXEC_RENDER | (I915_EXEC_CONSTANT= S_REL_SURFACE+1); > >> + RUN_FAIL(EINVAL); > > > > It seems that the exec.flags is the same as "I915_EXEC_BSD | > > I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE). And then it is similar to subtest of > > rel-constants-invalid-ring. Not sure whether you are hoping to set the > > flag as "I915_EXEC_RENDER | I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_MASK"? > = > They're three completely different checks: > 1. checks for invalid flags on rings other than RENDER > 2. checks for a specific invalid flag which doesn't exist on gen5+ any mo= re > 3. checks for a completely invalid flag (notice the + 1) on any platform I think the point was that I915_EXEC_RENDER+1 =3D=3D I915_EXEC_BSD. Hence the +1 is entirely bogus. So you want either I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_REL_SURFACE+(1<<6) or just I915_EXEC_CONSTANTS_MASK. -- = Ville Syrj=E4l=E4 Intel OTC