[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1260cd8c-2904-1a21-d7ad-ba9b82f67797@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 20:54:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
cc: Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Saravana Kannan <saravanak@...gle.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
Han Gao <rabenda.cn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: Skip devicetree kunit tests when RISCV+ACPI doesn't
populate root node
On Thu, 23 Oct 2025, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 11:48 AM Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Oct 2025, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >
> > > Starting with commit 69a8b62a7aa1 ("riscv: acpi: avoid errors caused by
> > > probing DT devices when ACPI is used"), riscv images no longer populate
> > > devicetree if ACPI is enabled. This causes unit tests to fail which require
> > > the root node to be set.
> > >
> > > # Subtest: of_dtb
> > > # module: of_test
> > > 1..2
> > > # of_dtb_root_node_found_by_path: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/of/of_test.c:21
> > > Expected np is not null, but is
> > > # of_dtb_root_node_found_by_path: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1
> > > not ok 1 of_dtb_root_node_found_by_path
> > > # of_dtb_root_node_populates_of_root: EXPECTATION FAILED at drivers/of/of_test.c:31
> > > Expected of_root is not null, but is
> > > # of_dtb_root_node_populates_of_root: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1
> > > not ok 2 of_dtb_root_node_populates_of_root
> > >
> > > Skip those tests for RISCV if the root node is not populated.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 69a8b62a7aa1 ("riscv: acpi: avoid errors caused by probing DT devices when ACPI is used")
> > > Cc: Han Gao <rabenda.cn@...il.com>
> > > Cc: Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>
> > > Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org> # arch/riscv
>
> FWIW, the fixed commit will also prevent enabling features like this
> series[1] enables. Arm64 is still disabled ATM because of disagreement
> with the arm64 maintainers, so that can was kicked down the road. It
> would be better to not disable this and address the issues as they
> happen rather than breaking people down the road.
Thanks for the context, Rob. Can you share a pointer to the ARM64
disagreement thread(s) (either publicly or privately)?
- Paul
Powered by blists - more mailing lists