On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 06:43:41PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
(...)
- # RUN pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST ...
- # OK pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST
- ok 11 pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST
- # PASSED: 11 / 11 tests passed.
- # Totals: pass:11 fail:0 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
+Testcase 11 (pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST) will fail for most of the DMA +capable endpoint controllers due to the absence of the MEMCPY over DMA. For such +controllers, it is advisable to skip the forementioned testcase using below +command::
Hm.. this is strictly not correct. If will currently fail because pci-epf-test.c does: if ((reg->flags & FLAG_USE_DMA) && epf_test->dma_private) return -EINVAL;
So even if a DMA driver has support for the DMA_MEMCPY cap, if the DMA driver also has the DMA_PRIVATE cap, this test will fail because of the code in pci-epf-test.c.
Not sure how to formulate this properly... Perhaps: Testcase 11 (pci_ep_data_transfer.dma.COPY_TEST) will fail for DMA drivers that have the DMA_PRIVATE cap set. For DMA drivers which have the DMA_PRIVATE cap set, it is advisable to skip the forementioned testcase using below command::
- # pci_endpoint_test -f pci_ep_basic -v memcpy -T COPY_TEST -v dma
Is this really correct? I would guess that it should be pci_endpoint_test -f pci_ep_data_transfer -v memcpy -T COPY_TEST -v dma
(...)
+TEST_F(pci_ep_basic, BAR_TEST) +{
- int ret, i;
- for (i = 0; i <= 5; i++) {
pci_ep_ioctl(PCITEST_BAR, i);EXPECT_FALSE(ret) TH_LOG("Test failed for BAR%d", i);- }
+}
From looking at this function, will we still be able to test a single BAR? Previous pcitest.c allowed us to do pcitest -b <barno> to only test a specific BAR. I think that is a useful feature that we shouldn't remove.
It would be nice if we could do something like: # pci_endpoint_test -f pci_ep_basic -T BAR_TEST -v <barno>
(...)
+TEST_F(pci_ep_data_transfer, COPY_TEST) +{
- struct pci_endpoint_test_xfer_param param = {0};
This (also other places in this file) can be written as: struct pci_endpoint_test_xfer_param param = {};
Kind regards, Niklas