[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <956f2b88-8b52-45b3-a27d-fa8e75a02642@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:02:03 +0000
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: <tiwai@...e.com>, <linux-sound@...r.kernel.org>,
<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASoC: cs-amp-lib: Add KUnit test for calibration
helpers
On 23/02/2024 16:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:39:10PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
>
>> +config SND_SOC_CS_AMP_LIB_TEST
>> + tristate "KUnit test for Cirrus Logic cs-amp-lib"
>> + depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST || KUNIT
>
> Should this not depend unconditionally on KUNIT rather than KUNIT or
> some other stuff? ie
>
> depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
> depends on KUNIT
>
> or equivalent.
>
Now I look at it again, it's not correct. It's the ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
that is bogus.
>> +#define TYPESAFE_ACTIVATE_STATIC_STUB_PTR(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn) \
>> + do { \
>> + typecheck_fn(typeof(fn_ptr), replacement_fn); \
>> + __kunit_activate_static_stub(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn); \
>> + } while (0)
>
> Should this be somewhere more generic in the kunit headers?
Damn, I meant to change this. I did a patch a while ago to fix
kunit_activate_static_stub() so that it worked but it takes a really
long time for kunit patches to end up in the mainline kernel. Hence this
was a temporary workaround. I noticed my fix has gone in at last but I
forgot to remove this workaround.
Can you skip this patch and take the others (assuming you are happy with
them) and I'll fixup and resubmit this test later.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists