On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 10:12:58PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > On 11/11/25 09:29, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Heinrich > > > > On Sun, 9 Nov 2025 at 12:10, Heinrich Schuchardt > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > The `fdt apply` sub-command is only available if CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY > > > is enabled. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > test/cmd/fdt.c | 3 +++ > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/test/cmd/fdt.c b/test/cmd/fdt.c > > > index 96a8488e172..a36f2dcdda8 100644 > > > --- a/test/cmd/fdt.c > > > +++ b/test/cmd/fdt.c > > > @@ -1319,6 +1319,9 @@ static int fdt_test_apply(struct unit_test_state > > > *uts) > > > char fdt[8192], fdto[8192]; > > > ulong addr, addro; > > > > > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY)) > > > + return -EAGAIN; > > > > The asserts return CMD_RET_FAILURE on failures. Should't we use the same > > here? > > There is nothing wrong in CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY=n. This is not a failure. > > -EAGAIN signals a skipped test. > Look for EAGAIN in test/test-main.c. > > We should describe this in doc/develop/tests_writing.rst.
We should document it, yes. I don't have a strong preference over using this rather than just not compiling the test in to start with. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
