Hello Rasmus, On 04.11.25 18:44, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
Commit ebaa3d053e5 ("test: fix CONFIG_ACPIGEN dependencies"), which got into v2022.10-rc1, accidentally left out a $ before (CONFIG_DM_GPIO), with the effect that test/dm/gpio.c has not been built for three years.Unsurprisingly, the code in there has bit-rotted. - There's a missing ; causing plain build fail. That code was added in 9bf87e256c2 ("test: dm: update test for open-drain/open-source emulation in gpio-uclass"), which was part of v2020.07-rc3, i.e. long before the commit causing gpio.c to not be built at all. It did build at that time, but also, the missing semicolon wasn't found when fa847bb409d ("test: Wrap assert macros in ({ ... }) and fix missing semicolons") happened in 2023. - Commit 592b6f394ae ("led: add function naming option from linux") bumped sandbox,gpio-count for bank gpio_a in test.dts to 25, but didn't update the expected global gpio numbers accordingly. - The "lookup by label" test likely worked when it was added, but then I inadvertently broke it when I noticed that dm_gpio_lookup_label() seemed to be broken in commit 10e66449d7e ("gpio-uclass: fix gpio lookup by label") - which landed in v2023.01-rc1, so after gpio.c was no longer being built. The "label" (which is a u-boot concept) that a "hogged gpio" gets is <gpio hog node name>.gpio-hog, which is why it used to work with the strncmp() but doesn't with strcmp(). We can either revert 10e66449d7e or append the ".gpio-hog" suffix as done below. I don't really have a dog in that race; when I did 10e66449d7e, it was because I thought the "lookup by label" was actually about the standardized gpio-line-names property, but then I learnt it was not, so is not at all useful to me. - The leak check now fails. Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a95b0 (2790832), got 0x2a9650 (2790992) test/dm/gpio.c:328, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1) Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c (flat tree) test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a9650 (2790992), got 0x2a9700 (2791168) test/dm/gpio.c:328, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1) And it fails with the same differences (160/176) even if I remove the three lines that actually exercise any of the gpio code, i.e. make the whole function amount to ut_assertok(dm_leak_check_end(uts)); Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a95b0 (2790832), got 0x2a9650 (2790992) test/dm/gpio.c:325, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1) Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c (flat tree) test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a9650 (2790992), got 0x2a9700 (2791168) test/dm/gpio.c:325, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1) So I suspect that the leak is somewhere in the test framework setup/teardown code - dm_leack_check_end() isn't really used anywhere else except in a dm/core test. Bisecting to figure out where that was introduced is somewhat of a hassle because of the other bitrot, and because of the SWIG failure that makes it very hard to build older U-Boots. So since it's better to have most of the gpio tests actually working instead of leaving all of gpio.c as dead code, #if 0 that part out and leave it as an archeological exercise. Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <[email protected]> --- test/dm/Makefile | 2 +- test/dm/gpio.c | 13 ++++++++----- 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Thanks! Reviewed-by: Heiko Schocher <[email protected]> bye, Heiko -- Nabla Software Engineering HRB 40522 Augsburg Phone: +49 821 45592596 E-Mail: [email protected] Geschäftsführer : Stefano Babic
