Intel-XE Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
To: <intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org>
Cc: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>,
	Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/8] drm/xe/kunit: Rename count to count_sr_entries
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2024 18:59:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240727015907.899192-3-lucas.demarchi@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240727015907.899192-1-lucas.demarchi@intel.com>

The RTP tests check both the result of processing the RTP entries and
the outcome saved as SR entries. Rename "count" to be explicit about
what's being counted.

Reviewed-by: Gustavo Sousa <gustavo.sousa@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c | 32 +++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
index f217445c246a..5ebaed1af3f2 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/xe/tests/xe_rtp_test.c
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ struct rtp_test_case {
 	struct xe_reg expected_reg;
 	u32 expected_set_bits;
 	u32 expected_clr_bits;
-	unsigned long expected_count;
+	unsigned long expected_count_sr_entries;
 	unsigned int expected_sr_errors;
 	const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr *entries;
 };
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		/* Different bits on the same register: create a single entry */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		/* Don't coalesce second entry since rules don't match */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0) | REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(2),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("first"),
 			  XE_RTP_RULES(FUNC(match_yes), OR, FUNC(match_no)),
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 	{
 		.name = "match-or-xfail",
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
-		.expected_count = 0,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 0,
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("leading-or"),
 			  XE_RTP_RULES(OR, FUNC(match_yes)),
@@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		/* Don't coalesce second entry due to one of the rules */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 2,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 2,
 		/* Same bits on different registers are not coalesced */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(1) | REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		/* Check clr vs set actions on different bits */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = TEMP_FIELD,
 		.expected_clr_bits = TEMP_MASK,
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		/* Check FIELD_SET works */
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		.expected_sr_errors = 1,
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		.expected_sr_errors = 1,
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static const struct rtp_test_case cases[] = {
 		.expected_reg = REGULAR_REG1,
 		.expected_set_bits = REG_BIT(0),
 		.expected_clr_bits = REG_BIT(0),
-		.expected_count = 1,
+		.expected_count_sr_entries = 1,
 		.expected_sr_errors = 2,
 		.entries = (const struct xe_rtp_entry_sr[]) {
 			{ XE_RTP_NAME("basic-1"),
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static void xe_rtp_process_tests(struct kunit *test)
 	struct xe_reg_sr *reg_sr = &gt->reg_sr;
 	const struct xe_reg_sr_entry *sre, *sr_entry = NULL;
 	struct xe_rtp_process_ctx ctx = XE_RTP_PROCESS_CTX_INITIALIZER(gt);
-	unsigned long idx, count = 0;
+	unsigned long idx, count_sr_entries = 0;
 
 	xe_reg_sr_init(reg_sr, "xe_rtp_tests", xe);
 	xe_rtp_process_to_sr(&ctx, param->entries, reg_sr);
@@ -304,11 +304,11 @@ static void xe_rtp_process_tests(struct kunit *test)
 		if (idx == param->expected_reg.addr)
 			sr_entry = sre;
 
-		count++;
+		count_sr_entries++;
 	}
 
-	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count, param->expected_count);
-	if (count) {
+	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, count_sr_entries, param->expected_count_sr_entries);
+	if (count_sr_entries) {
 		KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sr_entry->clr_bits, param->expected_clr_bits);
 		KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sr_entry->set_bits, param->expected_set_bits);
 		KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sr_entry->reg.raw, param->expected_reg.raw);
-- 
2.43.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-07-27  1:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-27  1:58 [PATCH v3 0/8] Fix rtp when processing OOB workarounds Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] drm/xe/kunit: Test WAs for BMG Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-29 14:28   ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-07-27  1:59 ` Lucas De Marchi [this message]
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] drm/xe/kunit: Test active rtp entries Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] drm/xe/kunit: Rename rtp test cases Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] drm/xe/kunit: Test rtp with no actions Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] drm/xe/rtp: Simplify marking active workarounds Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] drm/xe/rtp: Expand max rules/actions per entry again Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-29 14:38   ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-07-29 14:42     ` Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-27  1:59 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] drm/xe: Migrate OOB WAs to OR rules Lucas De Marchi
2024-07-29 17:03   ` Gustavo Sousa
2024-07-27  2:57 ` ✓ CI.Patch_applied: success for Fix rtp when processing OOB workarounds (rev4) Patchwork
2024-07-27  2:57 ` ✗ CI.checkpatch: warning " Patchwork
2024-07-27  2:58 ` ✓ CI.KUnit: success " Patchwork
2024-07-27  3:10 ` ✓ CI.Build: " Patchwork
2024-07-27  3:12 ` ✓ CI.Hooks: " Patchwork
2024-07-27  3:14 ` ✓ CI.checksparse: " Patchwork
2024-07-27 13:21 ` ✗ CI.FULL: failure " Patchwork
2024-07-29  5:34 ` ✓ CI.BAT: success " Patchwork

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=20240727015907.899192-3-lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --to=lucas.demarchi@intel.com \
    --cc=gustavo.sousa@intel.com \
    --cc=intel-xe@lists.freedesktop.org \
    /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