[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97f60824-7067-62cc-2882-d998072886ce@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 08:51:53 +0200
From: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Maxime Ripard <maxime@...no.tech>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittinen@...rohmeurope.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device
creation
On 3/24/23 08:34, David Gow wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:11, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/23/23 18:36, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>>>> On 3/23/23 14:29, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
>> Ok. Fair enough. Besides, if the root-device was sufficient - then I
>> would actually not see the need for a helper. People could in that case
>> directly use the root_device_register(). So, if helpers are provided
>> they should be backed up by a device with a bus then.
>
> I think there is _some_ value in helpers even without a bus, but it's
> much more limited:
> - It's less confusing if KUnit test devices are using kunit labelled
> structs and functions.
> - Helpers could use KUnit's resource management API to ensure any
> device created is properly unregistered and removed when the test
> exits (particularly if it exits early due to, e.g., an assertion).
Ah. That's true. Being able to abort the test on error w/o being forced
to do a clean-up dance for the dummy device would be convenient.
> I've played around implementing those with a proper struct
> kunit_device and the automatic cleanup on test failure, and thus far
> it -- like root_device_register -- works for all of the tests except
> the drm-test-managed one.
>
> So if we really wanted to, we could use KUnit-specific helpers for
> just those tests which currently work with root_device_register(), but
> if we're going to try to implement a KUnit bus -- which I think is at
> least worth investigating -- I'd rather not either hold up otherwise
> good tests on helper development, or rush a helper out only to have to
> change it a lot when we see exactly what the bus implementation would
> look like.
It's easy for me to agree.
>> As I said, in my very specific IIO related test the test device does not
>> need a bus. Hence I'll drop the 'generic helpers' from this series.
>>
>
> I think that sounds like a good strategy for now, and we can work on a
> set of 'generic helpers' which have an associated bus and struct
> kunit_device in the meantime. If we can continue to use
> root_device_register until those are ready, that'd be very convenient.
Would it be a tiny bit more acceptable if we did add a very simple:
#define kunit_root_device_register(name) root_device_register(name)
#define kunit_root_device_unregister(dev) root_device_unregister(dev)
to include/kunit/device.h (or somesuch)
This should help us later to at least spot the places where
root_device_[un]register() is abused and (potentially mass-)covert them
to use the proper helpers when they're available.
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