Message-ID: <ba25547c4416059310606b8b92bd2d9fe7f82df4.camel@fi.rohmeurope.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Apr 2020 11:46:08 +0000
From:   "Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
To:     "sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
        "mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>
CC:     "brendanhiggins@...gle.com" <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        "linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kunit-dev@...glegroups.com" <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] clk: gate: Add some kunit test suites

Hello Stephen & All,

Prologue:

I have been traumatized in the past - by unit tests :) Thus I am always
a bit jumpy when I see people adding UTs. I always see the inertia UTs
add to development - when people change anything they must also change
impacted UTs - and every unnecessary UT case is actually burden. I was
once buried under such burden.. Back at those times I quite often found
myself wondering why I spend two days fixing UT cases after I did a
necessary code change which took maybe 10 minutes. Please see my
comments knowing this history and do your decisions based on less
biased - brighter understanding :]


On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 20:56 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Test various parts of the clk gate implementation with the kunit
> testing
> framework.
> 
> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> Cc: <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
> ---
> 
> This patch is on top of this series[1] that allows the clk
> framework to be selected by Kconfig language.
> 
> [1] 
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200405025123.154688-1-sboyd@kernel.org
> 
>  drivers/clk/Kconfig         |   8 +
>  drivers/clk/Makefile        |   1 +
>  drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c | 481
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 490 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> index 6ea0631e3956..66193673bcdf 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> @@ -377,4 +377,12 @@ source "drivers/clk/ti/Kconfig"
>  source "drivers/clk/uniphier/Kconfig"
>  source "drivers/clk/zynqmp/Kconfig"
>  
> +# Kunit test cases
> +config CLK_GATE_TEST
> +	tristate "Basic gate type Kunit test"
> +	depends on KUNIT
> +	default KUNIT
> +	help
> +	  Kunit test for the basic clk gate type.
> +
>  endif
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> index f4169cc2fd31..0785092880fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-divider.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-fixed-factor.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-fixed-rate.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-gate.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_CLK_GATE_TEST)	+= clk-gate-test.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-multiplier.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-mux.o
>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK)	+= clk-composite.o
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c b/drivers/clk/clk-gate-
> test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b1d6c21e9698
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * KUnit test for clk gate basic type
> + */
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_dev(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +	struct platform_device *pdev;
> +
> +	pdev = platform_device_register_simple("test_gate_device", -1,
> NULL, 0);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, pdev);
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate(&pdev->dev, "test_gate", NULL, 0,
> NULL,
> +				   0, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "test_gate", clk_hw_get_name(ret));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0UL, clk_hw_get_flags(ret));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> +	platform_device_put(pdev);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_names(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    1000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", "test_parent", 0,
> NULL,
> +				   0, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> +	clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_data(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +	struct clk_parent_data pdata = { };
> +
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    1000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +	pdata.hw = parent;
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(NULL, "test_gate",
> &pdata, 0,
> +					       NULL, 0, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> +	clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_data_legacy(struct kunit
> *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +	struct clk_parent_data pdata = { };
> +
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    1000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +	pdata.name = "test_parent";
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(NULL, "test_gate",
> &pdata, 0,
> +					       NULL, 0, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> +	clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_hw(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    1000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0, NULL,
> +					     0, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> +	clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_hiword_invalid(struct kunit
> *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> +	ret = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, NULL,
> +				   20, CLK_GATE_HIWORD_MASK, NULL);
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, IS_ERR(ret));
> +}

Do we really need all these registration tests? I guess most of the
code path would be tested by just one of these - how much value we add
by adding rest of the registration cases? (just wondering)

> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_register_test_cases[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_dev),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_names),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_data),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_data_legacy),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_hw),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_hiword_invalid),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_register_test_suite = {
> +	.name = "clk-gate-register-test",
> +	.test_cases = clk_gate_register_test_cases,
> +};
> +
> +struct clk_gate_test_context {
> +	void __iomem *fake_mem;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	u32 fake_reg; /* Keep at end, KASAN can detect out of bounds */
> +};
> +
> +static struct clk_gate_test_context *clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(struct
> kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	test->priv = ctx = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);
> +	ctx->fake_mem = (void __force __iomem *)&ctx->fake_reg;
> +
> +	return ctx;
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_parent_rate(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	unsigned long prate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent);
> +	unsigned long rate = clk_hw_get_rate(hw);
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, prate, rate);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = BIT(5);
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}

Is this really necessary? Wouldn't most of this be tested by
clk_gate_test_disable()?

> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = BIT(5);
> +	u32 disable_val = 0;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_cases[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_parent_rate),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_enable),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_disable),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    2000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> +					    ctx->fake_mem, 5, 0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> +	ctx->hw = hw;
> +	ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(ctx->hw);
> +	clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(ctx->parent);
> +	kfree(ctx);
> +}

Aren't these init and exit actually covering some of the things tested
in clk_gate_register_test_cases? Perhaps we could reduce some tests or
use some test functions as init/exit?

> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_suite = {
> +	.name = "clk-gate-test",
> +	.init = clk_gate_test_init,
> +	.exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> +	.test_cases = clk_gate_test_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_invert_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = 0;
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}

Is this really adding value after clk_gate_test_invert_disable() has
passed?

+
> +static void clk_gate_test_invert_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = 0;
> +	u32 disable_val = BIT(15);
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_invert_cases[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_invert_enable),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_invert_disable),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_invert_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    2000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> +	ctx->fake_reg = BIT(15); /* Default to off */
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> +					    ctx->fake_mem, 15,
> +					    CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE,
> NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> +	ctx->hw = hw;
> +	ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}

Aren't these init and exit actually covering some of the things tested
in clk_gate_register_test_cases? Perhaps we could reduce some tests or
use some test functions as init/exit?

I stopped reviewing here - I think you know what I was up-to and you
are the best experts to evaluate whether there is something to
squash/drop also in the rest of the tests :)


Epilogue:

In general, I would be very careful when adding UT-code and I would try
to minimize the required test changes when for example one of the clk
APIs require a change. (I know, the test changes are least thing to
worry if these APIs need change - but effort is still cumulative and if
we can avoid some - we should).

I don't mean to be disrespectful. I know my place in the food-chain :p
Besides, I have seen the great work Stephen has been doing with clk -
and I believe he knows what he is doing. But sometimes little poking
can invoke new thoughts :grin: You can ignore my comments if they make
no sense to you.

Best Regards
  --Matti
> 

> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_invert_suite = {
> +	.name = "clk-gate-invert-test",
> +	.init = clk_gate_test_invert_init,
> +	.exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> +	.test_cases = clk_gate_test_invert_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_hiword_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = BIT(9) | BIT(9 + 16);
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_hiword_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +	struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> +	struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> +	int ret;
> +	u32 enable_val = BIT(9) | BIT(9 + 16);
> +	u32 disable_val = BIT(9 + 16);
> +
> +	ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> +	clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> +	KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_hiword_cases[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_hiword_enable),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_hiword_disable),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_hiword_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *parent;
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> +					    2000000);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> +					    ctx->fake_mem, 9,
> +					    CLK_GATE_HIWORD_MASK,
> NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> +	ctx->hw = hw;
> +	ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_hiword_suite = {
> +	.name = "clk-gate-hiword-test",
> +	.init = clk_gate_test_hiword_init,
> +	.exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> +	.test_cases = clk_gate_test_hiword_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_enabled(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	ctx->fake_reg = BIT(7);
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 7,
> +				  0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> +	kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_disabled(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	ctx->fake_reg = BIT(4);
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 7,
> +				  0, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> +	kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_enabled_inverted(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	ctx->fake_reg = BIT(31);
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 2,
> +				  CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> +	kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_disabled_inverted(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw *hw;
> +	struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> +	ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> +	ctx->fake_reg = BIT(29);
> +	hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 29,
> +				  CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE, NULL);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +	KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> +	clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> +	kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_enabled_cases[] = {
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_enabled),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_disabled),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_enabled_inverted),
> +	KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_disabled_inverted),
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_enabled_suite = {
> +	.name = "clk-gate-is_enabled-test",
> +	.test_cases = clk_gate_test_enabled_cases,
> +};
> +
> +kunit_test_suites(
> +	&clk_gate_register_test_suite,
> +	&clk_gate_test_suite,
> +	&clk_gate_test_invert_suite,
> +	&clk_gate_test_hiword_suite,
> +	&clk_gate_test_enabled_suite
> +);
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
> 
> base-commit: 7111951b8d4973bda27ff663f2cf18b663d15b48
> prerequisite-patch-id: e066e74d3e3848a69239083647017b9e4b2a7b87
> prerequisite-patch-id: ab1cc18da4a59b8973b4c8d85b6ea90eb6200df0
> prerequisite-patch-id: 5608c2059c4ad2d76aae62cd9897862a1f447cfb
> prerequisite-patch-id: 3a2300fc681af075232bfe62dbd1eb81290ca5a1
> prerequisite-patch-id: 6268382cce3446e3eb3cec7fec86973ab3dc9e7c
> prerequisite-patch-id: 57b540a6a65ffb9cc53bb4b9c3fd8c4f55a4ce05
> prerequisite-patch-id: 2ec56bc3f971534850ebe7253d5ae023dfc87410
> prerequisite-patch-id: 9500860f59b801c734ab22f18737ca0ceff8208c
> prerequisite-patch-id: 09a4d90ae718ab61fc9423862b1c2044ea898e3e
> -- 
> Sent by a computer, using git, on the internet
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists