On 8/30/2017 3:09 PM, Daniel Vetter wrote:
One more on top of Lionel's coments. On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 03:23:03PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:+int main(int argc, char **argv) +{ + bool ret; + int option; + int platform; + + if (argc != 3) { + printf("Usage: \n./dapc <Platform> <Test_mode>\ + \nPlatform: 0-HSW, 1-BDW, 2-SKL\n\ + \nTest_mode:\n\ + \t0 - RCS OA mode\n\ + \t1 - RCS TS mode\n\ + \t2 - RCS TS+MMIO mode\n\ + \t3 - RCS OA+TS+MMIO mode\n\ + \t4 - Periodic OA mode\n"); + return 0; + } + + ret = initialize(); + if (!ret) + return -1; + + platform = atoi(argv[1]); + switch (platform) { + case 0: + arch = ARCH_HSW; + break; + case 1: + arch = ARCH_BDW; + break; + case 2: + arch = ARCH_SKL; + break; + default: + fprintf(stderr, "Invalid platform:%d\n", platform); + return -1; + } + + option = atoi(argv[2]);Please convert this into a proper igt testcase that enumrates subtests like all the others. Otherwise CI won't pick it up, which makes this wasted effort. This means using igt_main, igt_subtest, igt_fixture and all the various igt_assert/require macros we have to check results. Also dapc is not a good testcase name, needs some proper prefixing. -Daniel
Yes. Will update the testcase. Thank you Daniel.
+ switch (option) { + case 0: + test_perf_dapc_rcs_oa(); + break; + case 1: + test_perf_dapc_rcs_ts(); + break; + case 2: + test_perf_dapc_rcs_ts_mmio(); + break; + case 3: + test_perf_dapc_rcs_oa_ts_mmio(); + break; + case 4: + test_perf_dapc_periodic_oa(); + break; + default: + fprintf(stderr, "Invalid Option:%d\n", option); + return -1; + } + + return 0; +} -- 1.9.1 _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
