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 = >->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
next prev 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