On Tue, Nov 04, 2025 at 03:01:31PM +0100, Raphael Gallais-Pou wrote: > > > On 11/3/25 15:17, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 02, 2025 at 08:53:43PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Raphael, > >> > >> On Sun, 2 Nov 2025 at 02:10, Raphaël Gallais-Pou <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> Le Sat, Nov 01, 2025 at 10:03:59AM +0100, Simon Glass a écrit : > >>>> Hi Raphael, > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 4 Sept 2025 at 14:53, Raphael Gallais-Pou > >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > >>>> Please add a test for this in test/dm/ofnode.c > >>> Hi Simon, > >>> > >>> I'll gladly do that, but I haven't write and use any test in U-Boot. So > >>> it is a bit foggy how to implement it. > >> There is some info here: > >> > >> https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/testing.html > >> > >>> Do we want to create a fake device-tree and test each configuration or > >>> do we want to test in the _current_ device-tree if timings are correctly > >>> set according to the index value ? > >> It looks like there is a 'display-timings' node in test.dts, with three > >> subnodes, so you should just be able to get an ofnode for that and then > >> read out one of them and check it. > > OK, but what is the utility in doing that? We don't, and aren't, going > > to have tests for every valid possible DT node, and this isn't > > introducing new library parsing functionality (the most recent patch to > > test/dm/ofnode.c was for ofnode_graph and that is important to test). We > > don't have display-timing tests to start with, so we're fine not adding > > something more here. > > > > (Adding back Patrice, whom had been removed from CC.) > > Got it, so nothing to do on my side.
For this specific part of the series, yes, this seems fine. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
