From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 225FFC3A5A8 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076CC23401 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 14:04:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730665AbfIDOEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:04:05 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:11571 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727417AbfIDOEF (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Sep 2019 10:04:05 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga003.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.27]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Sep 2019 07:04:03 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,467,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="185122449" Received: from paasikivi.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.42]) by orsmga003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 04 Sep 2019 07:03:58 -0700 Received: by paasikivi.fi.intel.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 61906204A6; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:03:45 +0300 (EEST) Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 17:03:45 +0300 From: Sakari Ailus To: Petr Mladek Cc: rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Andy Shevchenko , Heikki Krogerus , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk modifier Message-ID: <20190904140345.GT5475@paasikivi.fi.intel.com> References: <20190902083240.20367-1-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20190902083240.20367-12-sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com> <20190903133841.dhb6k2lwx2gglyjs@pathway.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190903133841.dhb6k2lwx2gglyjs@pathway.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Petr, Thanks for the comments. On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:38:41PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote: > On Mon 2019-09-02 11:32:40, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sakari Ailus > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko > > --- > > lib/test_printf.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 37 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/test_printf.c b/lib/test_printf.c > > index 944eb50f38625..9c6d716979fb1 100644 > > --- a/lib/test_printf.c > > +++ b/lib/test_printf.c > > @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ > > #include > > #include > > > > +#include > > + > > #include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h" > > > > #define BUF_SIZE 256 > > @@ -588,6 +590,40 @@ flags(void) > > kfree(cmp_buffer); > > } > > > > +static void __init fwnode_pointer(void) > > +{ > > + const struct software_node softnodes[] = { > > + { .name = "first", }, > > + { .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], }, > > + { .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], }, > > + { NULL /* Guardian */ }, > > + }; > > + const char * const full_name = "/second/third"; > > + const char * const full_name_second = "/second"; > > + const char * const second_name = "second"; > > + const char * const third_name = "third"; > > + int rval; > > + > > + rval = software_node_register_nodes(softnodes); > > + if (rval) { > > + pr_warn("cannot register softnodes; rval %d\n", rval); > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + test(full_name_second, "%pfw", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3])); > > "ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3" is quite cryptic. > Is there any particular reason to use it instead of &softnodes[1] ? I'm fine using a direct index, rather than refer to entries from the top downwards. > > And is it expected that it does not print the "/first" parent? Heikki actually commented on an issue related to the "root" nodes. I'll reply to his comment, on the 5th patch of the set. > > > + test(full_name, "%pfw", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > + test(full_name, "%pfwf", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > + test(second_name, "%pfwP", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3])); > > + test(third_name, "%pfwP", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > + > > + software_node_unregister_nodes(softnodes); > > +} > > Anyway, thanks for the tests. You're welcome! -- Kind regards, Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com