From: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
patches@lists.linux.dev,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@linux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J.Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Anton Ivanov <anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>,
Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchurch@axis.com>,
Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@gmail.com>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] clk: Add kunit tests for fixed rate and parent data
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2023 09:03:27 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <b27b1926-ea79-4e77-b0ca-60d4ac1ca7ce@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAL_Jsq+yhdSqiAVfUKh1DGaKTEGHOMPKAYpQPPB=ywA76C6EvA@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/6/23 06:53, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 4, 2023 at 9:39 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/23 17:57, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 12:18:34)
>>>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:44 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 09:13:59)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good to see bindings for this. I've been meaning to do something about
>>>>>> the DT unittest ones being undocumented, but I hadn't really decided
>>>>>> whether it was worth writing schemas for them. The compatibles at
>>>>>> least show up with 'make dt_compatible_check'. Perhaps we want to just
>>>>>> define some vendor (not 'linux') that's an exception rather than
>>>>>> requiring schemas (actually, that already works for 'foo').
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure. Maybe "kunit" should be the vendor prefix? Or "dtbunit"?
>>>>
>>>> We'd want to use the same thing on the DT unittests or anything else
>>>> potentially. How about just 'test'?
>>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> likely that we want test DTs that fail normal checks and schemas get
>>>>>> in the way of that as we don't have a way to turn off checks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Having the schemas is nice to make sure tests that are expecting some
>>>>> binding are actually getting that. But supporting broken bindings is
>>>>> also important to test any error paths in functions that parse
>>>>> properties. Maybe we keep the schema and have it enforce that incorrect
>>>>> properties are being set?
>>>>
>>>> I wasn't suggesting throwing them out. More why I hadn't written any I guess.
>>>>
>>>>> Do we really need to test incorrect bindings? Doesn't the
>>>>> dt_bindings_check catch these problems so we don't have to write DTB
>>>>> verifiers in the kernel?
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough. Using my frequently stated position against me. :)
>>>>
>>>> I do have a secret plan to implement (debug) type checks into the
>>>> of_property_* APIs by extracting the type information from schemas
>>>> into C.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. I suspect we may want to test error paths though so I don't know
>>
>> Yes, exactly.
>>
>>> what to do here. For now I'll just leave the bindings in place and
>>> change the prefix to "test".
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We already have GPIO tests in the DT unittests, so why is clocks
>>>>>> different? Or should the GPIO tests be moved out (yes, please!)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah I didn't notice the GPIO tests in there. There are i2c tests too,
>>>>> right? All I can say is clks are using kunit, that's the difference ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, they should perhaps all move to the subsystems.
>>>
>>> Got it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> What happens when/if the DT unittest is converted to kunit? I think
>>>>>> that would look confusing from the naming. My initial thought is
>>>>>> 'kunit' should be dropped from the naming of a lot of this. Note that
>>>>>> the original kunit submission converted the DT unittests. I would
>>>>>> still like to see that happen. Frank disagreed over what's a unit test
>>>>>> or not, then agreed, then didn't... I don't really care. If there's a
>>>>>> framework to use, then we should use it IMO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Honestly I don't want to get involved in migrating the existing DT
>>>>> unittest code to kunit. I'm aware that it was attempted years ago when
>>>>> kunit was introduced. Maybe if the overlay route works well enough I can
>>>>> completely sidestep introducing any code in drivers/of/ besides some
>>>>> kunit wrappers for this. I'll cross my fingers!
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I just want to make sure this meshes
>>>> with any future conversion to kunit.
>>>
>>> Phew!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's also some plans to always populate the DT root node if not
>>>> present. That may help here. Or not. There's been a few versions
>>>> posted with Frank's in the last week or 2.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. I think I have some time to try this overlay approach so let me see
>>> what is needed.
>>
>> Please avoid overlays. See my other replies in this thread for why.
>
> If overlays work for the constrained environment of unit tests, then
> use them. If overlays are not to be used, then remove the support from
> the kernel. Putting issues in a todo list is not going to get them
> done. Having users will.
Overlays are not used to enable OF unittests that are unrelated to
overlays (to the best of my memory - I reserve the right to be
corrected). Overlay usage in OF unittests is specifically to test
overlay features.
>
> Rob
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-03-06 15:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-03-02 1:38 [PATCH 0/8] clk: Add kunit tests for fixed rate and parent data Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 1/8] dt-bindings: Add linux,kunit binding Stephen Boyd
2023-03-03 7:14 ` David Gow
2023-03-03 7:49 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-03-09 23:12 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-10 7:55 ` David Gow
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 2/8] of: Enable DTB loading on UML for KUnit tests Stephen Boyd
2023-03-03 7:15 ` David Gow
2023-03-09 23:19 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-10 8:09 ` David Gow
2023-03-10 23:34 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-11 6:42 ` David Gow
2023-03-13 16:02 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-14 4:28 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-15 7:04 ` David Gow
2023-03-15 21:35 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-16 0:45 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-16 4:15 ` David Gow
2023-03-21 20:56 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-08 19:46 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 3/8] kunit: Add test managed platform_device/driver APIs Stephen Boyd
2023-03-03 7:15 ` David Gow
2023-03-03 14:35 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-03-09 23:31 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-15 8:27 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-03-09 23:25 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-10 8:19 ` David Gow
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 4/8] clk: Add test managed clk provider/consumer APIs Stephen Boyd
2023-03-03 7:15 ` David Gow
2023-03-10 23:21 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-11 6:32 ` David Gow
2023-03-21 14:32 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 5/8] dt-bindings: kunit: Add fixed rate clk consumer test Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 6/8] clk: Add KUnit tests for clk fixed rate basic type Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 7/8] dt-bindings: clk: Add KUnit clk_parent_data test Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 1:38 ` [PATCH 8/8] clk: Add KUnit tests for clks registered with struct clk_parent_data Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 8:13 ` [PATCH 0/8] clk: Add kunit tests for fixed rate and parent data David Gow
2023-03-02 17:32 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-02 19:27 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 19:47 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-03-05 3:32 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-05 9:26 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2023-03-06 5:32 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-04 15:04 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-07 21:53 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-04 14:48 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-02 17:13 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-02 19:44 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-02 20:18 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-02 23:57 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-04 15:39 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-06 12:53 ` Rob Herring
2023-03-06 15:03 ` Frank Rowand [this message]
2023-03-04 15:37 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-04 15:33 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-03 14:38 ` Maxime Ripard
2023-03-07 22:37 ` Stephen Boyd
2023-03-04 15:50 ` Frank Rowand
2023-03-10 7:48 ` David Gow
2023-03-13 15:30 ` Frank Rowand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=b27b1926-ea79-4e77-b0ca-60d4ac1ca7ce@gmail.com \
--to=frowand.list@gmail.com \
--cc=ansuelsmth@gmail.com \
--cc=anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com \
--cc=brendan.higgins@linux.dev \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-um@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
--cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@kernel.org \
--cc=vincent.whitchurch@axis.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).