[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <91c8dc84-8eae-15d9-3d55-976c2c806421@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:01:15 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Vaittinen, Matti" <Matti.Vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"kunit-dev@...glegroups.com" <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device
creation
On 3/23/23 10:58, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 07:17:40AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote:
>> On 3/22/23 20:57, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 03:48:00PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for looking at this.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/22/23 14:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> The biggest thing for me is that I don't like the idea of creating own 'test
>>>> device' in <add subsystem here> while we already have some in DRM (or
>>>> others). Thus, I do see value in adding generic helpers for supporting
>>>> running KUnit tests on devm_* APIs. Hence it'd be good to have _some_
>>>> support for it.
>>>
>>> I agree, let's use a virtual device and a virtual bus (you can use the
>>> auxbus code for this as that's all there for this type of thing)
>>
>> Hm. The auxiliary_devices require parent. What would be the best way to
>> deal with that in KUnit tests?
>
> If you use NULL as the parent, it goes into the root.
As far as I read this is not the case with auxiliary devices. Judging
the docs they were intended to be representing some part of a (parent)
device. I see the auxiliary_device_init() has explicit check for parent
being populated:
int auxiliary_device_init(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev)
{
struct device *dev = &auxdev->dev;
if (!dev->parent) {
pr_err("auxiliary_device has a NULL dev->parent\n");
return -EINVAL;
}
As I wrote in another mail, I thought of using a root_device for this
IIO test as was suggested by David. To tell the truth, implementing a
kunit bus device is starting to feel a bit overwhelming... I started
just adding a driver for a light sensor, ended up adding a helper for
IIO gain-time-scale conversions and I am slightly reluctant to going the
extra-extra mile of adding some UT infrastructure in the context of this
driver work...
Well, let's see. Maybe I change my mind after a good night's sleep :)
Yours,
-- Matti
--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
Powered by blists - more mailing lists