On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 16:24, Sean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 10/2/23 14:56, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Sean, > > > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 08:38, Sean Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/1/23 15:36, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > Hi Sean, > >> > > >> > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 10:12, Sean Anderson <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On 9/29/23 12:06, Sean Anderson wrote: > >> >> > SPL doesn't have OF_LIVE enabled, so we can only run tests with a flat > >> >> > tree. Don't skip them even if they don't use the devicetree. > >> >> > > >> >> > Fixes: 6ec5178c0ef ("test: Skip flat-tree tests if devicetree is not > >> >> > used") > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <[email protected]> > >> >> > --- > >> >> > > >> >> > test/test-main.c | 3 ++- > >> >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> >> > > >> >> > diff --git a/test/test-main.c b/test/test-main.c > >> >> > index 778bf0a18a0..edb20bc4b9c 100644 > >> >> > --- a/test/test-main.c > >> >> > +++ b/test/test-main.c > >> >> > @@ -476,7 +476,8 @@ static int ut_run_test_live_flat(struct > >> >> > unit_test_state *uts, > >> >> > * (for sandbox we handle this by copying the tree, but not > >> >> > for other > >> >> > * boards) > >> >> > */ > >> >> > - if ((test->flags & UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT) && > >> >> > + if ((!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_LIVE) || > >> >> > + (test->flags & UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT)) && > >> >> > !(test->flags & UT_TESTF_LIVE_TREE) && > >> >> > (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OFNODE_MULTI_TREE) || > >> >> > !(test->flags & UT_TESTF_OTHER_FDT)) && > >> >> > >> >> Upon further review, do we even need 6ec5178c0ef in the first place? > >> >> ut_test_run_on_flattree looks like it's trying to do the same thing. > >> > > >> > Well one problem is that many tests are not run at all unless OF_LIVE > >> > is enabled. The code as is is assuming that OF_LIVE is active. > >> > > >> > On boards where OF_LIVE is not active, many tests won't run at all > >> > unless they are marked with UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT. > >> > > >> > So I think that UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT line needs to be removed. > >> > >> OK, so to clarify, since 6ec5178c0ef added that UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT, you > >> would like to > >> revert that commit? > > > > Yes, I think that will work...but just check that tests without the > > UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT flag don't then run twice with sandbox. There was > > perhaps something else wrong at the time. > > Actually, upon further review, I think that the above patch is correct. A > revert would > cause tests with UT_TESTF_DM but without UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT to run twice. >
Thanks Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]>
