[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <59E1477D.6060700@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:08:45 -0700
From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kbuild mailing list <linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] of: Add unit tests for applying overlays
Hi Rob,
On 07/25/17 13:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 7:09 PM, <frowand.list@...il.com> wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>>
>> Existing overlay unit tests examine individual pieces of the overlay
>> code. The new tests target the entire process of applying an overlay.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@...y.com>
>> ---
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -1261,6 +1263,8 @@ void __init unflatten_device_tree(void)
>>
>> /* Get pointer to "/chosen" and "/aliases" nodes for use everywhere */
>> of_alias_scan(early_init_dt_alloc_memory_arch);
>> +
>> + unittest_unflatten_overlay_base();
>
> This breaks on systems that don't boot with FDT and call
> unflatten_device_tree, namely x86 and UML (UML needs a few hacks to
> work) which was a feature of the unittest. Considering applying
> overlays on x86 is something we'll want to support, the unittest
> should support that case.
>
> Rob
What is the symptom of the breakage? Or what is causing breakage?
-Frank
Powered by blists - more mailing lists