| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <TYZPR04MB6321AECE88794F8585182977966C9@TYZPR04MB6321.apcprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2023 19:53:44 +0800
From: Yang Xiwen <forbidden405@...look.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay
<devnull+forbidden405.outlook.com@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] clk: tests: Add missing test cases for mux
determine_rate
On 5/3/2023 11:08 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay (2023-04-26 12:34:17)
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> index f9a5c2964c65d..4f7f9a964637a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> @@ -2194,7 +2194,47 @@ static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
>> * parent, the rate request structure returned by __clk_determine_rate
>> * is sane and will be what we expect.
>> */
>> -static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate(struct kunit *test)
>
> Just leave this one alone and put the other test cases right after it.
> Don't rename it and also move it lower down. It makes the diff hard to
> read.
>
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case1(struct kunit *test)
>
> Please add a comment above each test case like there is for
> clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate() that describes what is
> being tested.
>
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, 0);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case2(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, DUMMY_CLOCK_INIT_RATE);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
>
> There should be some KUNIT_EXPECT statement in each test.>
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case3(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> @@ -2218,8 +2258,95 @@ static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate(struct kunit *test)
>> clk_put(clk);
>> }
>>
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case4(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, (DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1 + DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2) / 2);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case5(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2 + 100000);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case6(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, ULONG_MAX);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* We test 6 cases here:
>> + * 1. The requested rate is 0;
>> + * 2. The requested rate is not 0 but lower than any rate that parents could offer;
>> + * 3. The requested rate is exactly one of the parents' clock rate;
>> + * 4. The requested rate is between the lowest clock rate and the highest clock rate that the parents could offer;
>> + * 5. The requested rate is larger than all rates that parents could offer;
>> + * 6. The requested rate is ULONG_MAX.
>> + *
>> + * Hopefully they covered all cases.
>> + */
>
> Please remove this comment and name the cases better.
Thanks, I will follow your suggestions and rename them in next version.
>
>> static struct kunit_case clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_cases[] = {
>> - KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate),
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case1),
>
> Maybe call it clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_request_zero?
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case2),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_lower_than_parents_fails
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case3),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_exactly_parent1
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case4),
>
> I'm not sure I understand what is being tested in this case. Are we
> testing that __clk_determine_rate() with a rate between parent0 and
> parent1 picks parent1?Yes, that's it. For example, 2 parents offer 100MHz and 200MHz, we
request 150MHz, and 100MHz should be determined(the highest possible
rate lower than or equal to the requested rate). Actually the flag
CLK_MUX_ROUND_CLOSEST is still missing in the test cases. I suppose it
should be in another patchset.
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case5),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_larger_than_parents
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case6),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_ULONG_MAX_picks_parent1
--
Best regards,
Yang Xiwen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists