[v1,1/4] test/power: fix check for cpu frequency

  Different drivers present the current cpu core frequency in different
sysfs iles. Some present it in cpuinfo_cur_freq, some in scaling_cur_freq,
and some actually present it in both.

This patch attempts to open one, if that fails, tries the other.

Fixes: d550a8cc31f3 ("app/test: enhance power manager unit tests")
Cc: stable@dpdk.org

Signed-off-by: David Hunt <david.hunt@intel.com>
---
 app/test/test_power_cpufreq.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
> +		TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {

>  		return 0;

[Reshma]:  Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.

>  	}
>  	f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
>  	if (f == NULL) {
> -		return 0;
> +		if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
> +			TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> +			return 0;
> +		}
> +		f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> +		if (f == NULL) {
> +			return 0;
> +		}
>  	}
>  	for (i = 0; i < MAX_LOOP; i++) {
>  		fflush(f);
> --
> 2.17.1
  

This patch series is stucked.
That's too often the case for the power lib/example/test patches.

29/04/2021 12:34, Pattan, Reshma:
> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
> > +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> 
> >  return 0;
> 
> [Reshma]:  Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
> 
> >  }
> >  f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> >  if (f == NULL) {
> > -return 0;
> > +if (snprintf(fullpath, sizeof(fullpath),
> > +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_CPUINFO_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
> > +return 0;
> > +}
> > +f = fopen(fullpath, "r");
> > +if (f == NULL) {
> > +return 0;
> > +}
> >  }
  

On 29/4/2021 11:34 AM, Pattan, Reshma wrote:
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev <dev-bounces@dpdk.org> On Behalf Of David Hunt
>> +TEST_POWER_SYSFILE_SCALING_FREQ, lcore_id) < 0) {
>>   return 0;
> [Reshma]:  Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.


Hi Reshma,

We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this 
patch set.

We should look at this in a future patch, OK?

Rgds,

Dave.
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hunt, David <david.hunt@intel.com>
> > [Reshma]:  Do we need to return -1 here and in other failure scenarios below.
> 
> 
> Hi Reshma,
> 
> We might do, but that's not something I had intended to address in this patch
> set.
> 
> We should look at this in a future patch, OK?
> 
> Rgds,
> 
> Dave.
> 
> 

Fine with me. Thanks for checking.