On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 19:30:47 +0200
Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 3/10/25 5:23 PM, Alireza Sanaee via wrote:
> > Test new PPTT topolopy with cache representation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alireza Sanaee <alireza.sanaee@huawei.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c | 4 ++++
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> > b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c index 0a333ec43536..6bdc25f4df1e
> > 100644 --- a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> > @@ -2142,6 +2142,10 @@ static void
> > test_acpi_aarch64_virt_tcg_topology(void) };
> >
> > test_acpi_one("-cpu cortex-a57 "
> > + "-M
> > virt,smp-cache.0.cache=l1i,smp-cache.0.topology=cluster,"
> > +
> > "smp-cache.1.cache=l1d,smp-cache.1.topology=cluster,"
> > +
> > "smp-cache.2.cache=l2,smp-cache.2.topology=cluster,"
> > +
> > "smp-cache.3.cache=l3,smp-cache.3.topology=cluster "
> In the coverletter you used different topologies: core, cluster,
> socket. Don't you want to test the same config here?
The reason I used this one is because it is a weird setup (everything
shared at Cluster) and if this one works, I can sorta say the rest of
the scenarios work fine too. I get that this differs from the cover
letter setup.
I could also add a single test for all combinations of caches.
They are quite a few. But then I would be happy to do if I should.
>
> Is it better to reuse the existing ".topology" variant or to create
> another one? (I have no strong opinion though)
I am not sure how to do variants and I just replaced the existing one,
but happy to do either way.
>
> Thanks
>
> Eric
> > "-smp sockets=1,clusters=2,cores=2,threads=2",
> > &data); free_test_data(&data);
> > }
>
>