i915/gem_exec_params: Check that FENCE_IN | FENCE_SUBMIT is rejected

Since both the in-fence and the submit-fence utilise the same slot in
execbuf.rsvd2, we can only enable one of the two. If the user
accidentally, tries to use both with the same fence, we expect EINVAL.

Signed-off-by: Chris Wilson <chris@chris-wilson.co.uk>
Acked-by: Mika Kuoppala <mika.kuoppala@linux.intel.com>

1 files changed, 37 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
index 83194be7..86d50489 100644
--- a/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
+++ b/tests/i915/gem_exec_params.c
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@
 #include "i915/gem.h"
 #include "igt.h"
 #include "igt_device.h"
+#include "sw_sync.h"
 
 static bool has_ring(int fd, unsigned ring_exec_flags)
 {
@@ -196,6 +197,20 @@ static int has_secure_batches(const int fd)
 	return v > 0;
 }
 
+static bool has_submit_fence(int fd)
+{
+	int v = 0;
+	struct drm_i915_getparam gp = {
+		.param = I915_PARAM_HAS_EXEC_SUBMIT_FENCE,
+		.value = &v,
+	};
+
+	ioctl(fd, DRM_IOCTL_I915_GETPARAM, &gp, sizeof(gp));
+	errno = 0;
+
+	return v > 0;
+}
+
 static uint32_t batch_create(int i915)
 {
 	const uint32_t bbe = MI_BATCH_BUFFER_END;
@@ -535,6 +550,28 @@ igt_main
 		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
 	}
 
+	igt_subtest("invalid-fence-in-submit") {
+		int timeline;
+
+		igt_require(gem_has_exec_fence(fd));
+		igt_require(has_submit_fence(fd));
+
+		timeline = sw_sync_timeline_create();
+		execbuf.rsvd2 = sw_sync_timeline_create_fence(timeline, 1);
+
+		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN;
+		gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_SUBMIT;
+		gem_execbuf(fd, &execbuf);
+
+		execbuf.flags = I915_EXEC_FENCE_IN | I915_EXEC_FENCE_SUBMIT;
+		RUN_FAIL(EINVAL);
+
+		close(execbuf.rsvd2);
+		close(timeline);
+	}
+
 	igt_subtest("rsvd2-dirt") {
 		igt_require(!gem_has_exec_fence(fd));
 		execbuf.flags = 0;