Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 12:18:34) > On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:44 PM Stephen Boyd <sb...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 09:13:59) > > > > > > Good to see bindings for this. I've been meaning to do something about > > > the DT unittest ones being undocumented, but I hadn't really decided > > > whether it was worth writing schemas for them. The compatibles at > > > least show up with 'make dt_compatible_check'. Perhaps we want to just > > > define some vendor (not 'linux') that's an exception rather than > > > requiring schemas (actually, that already works for 'foo'). > > > > Sure. Maybe "kunit" should be the vendor prefix? Or "dtbunit"? > > We'd want to use the same thing on the DT unittests or anything else > potentially. How about just 'test'?
Sounds good. > > > > It's > > > likely that we want test DTs that fail normal checks and schemas get > > > in the way of that as we don't have a way to turn off checks. > > > > Having the schemas is nice to make sure tests that are expecting some > > binding are actually getting that. But supporting broken bindings is > > also important to test any error paths in functions that parse > > properties. Maybe we keep the schema and have it enforce that incorrect > > properties are being set? > > I wasn't suggesting throwing them out. More why I hadn't written any I guess. > > > Do we really need to test incorrect bindings? Doesn't the > > dt_bindings_check catch these problems so we don't have to write DTB > > verifiers in the kernel? > > Fair enough. Using my frequently stated position against me. :) > > I do have a secret plan to implement (debug) type checks into the > of_property_* APIs by extracting the type information from schemas > into C. > Ok. I suspect we may want to test error paths though so I don't know what to do here. For now I'll just leave the bindings in place and change the prefix to "test". > > > > We already have GPIO tests in the DT unittests, so why is clocks > > > different? Or should the GPIO tests be moved out (yes, please!)? > > > > Ah I didn't notice the GPIO tests in there. There are i2c tests too, > > right? All I can say is clks are using kunit, that's the difference ;-) > > Yeah, they should perhaps all move to the subsystems. Got it. > > > > What happens when/if the DT unittest is converted to kunit? I think > > > that would look confusing from the naming. My initial thought is > > > 'kunit' should be dropped from the naming of a lot of this. Note that > > > the original kunit submission converted the DT unittests. I would > > > still like to see that happen. Frank disagreed over what's a unit test > > > or not, then agreed, then didn't... I don't really care. If there's a > > > framework to use, then we should use it IMO. > > > > Honestly I don't want to get involved in migrating the existing DT > > unittest code to kunit. I'm aware that it was attempted years ago when > > kunit was introduced. Maybe if the overlay route works well enough I can > > completely sidestep introducing any code in drivers/of/ besides some > > kunit wrappers for this. I'll cross my fingers! > > Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I just want to make sure this meshes > with any future conversion to kunit. Phew! > > There's also some plans to always populate the DT root node if not > present. That may help here. Or not. There's been a few versions > posted with Frank's in the last week or 2. > Ok. I think I have some time to try this overlay approach so let me see what is needed. _______________________________________________ linux-um mailing list linux-um@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
