On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:21:55AM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> On 9/22/2015 3:39 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:38:27PM -0700, Frank Rowand wrote:
> >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Add dtc tests.
> >>
> >> - dtc --annotate to create a .dts with annotations
> >> - compile the annotated .dts
> >> - compare the .dts created from include0.dts to the .dts created
> >> by first compiling include0.dts with annotations, then compiling
> >> the resulting .dts without --annotations to strip the annotation
> >
> > My brain hurts trying to follow that.
> >
> >> Not-signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> tests/run_tests.sh | 10 ++++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> Index: b/tests/run_tests.sh
> >> ===================================================================
> >> --- a/tests/run_tests.sh
> >> +++ b/tests/run_tests.sh
> >> @@ -276,6 +276,16 @@ libfdt_tests () {
> >> run_dtc_test -I dts -O dtb -o sourceoutput.test.dts.test.dtb sourceoutput.test.dts
> >> run_test dtbs_equal_ordered sourceoutput.test.dtb sourceoutput.test.dts.test.dtb
> >>
> >> + # verify annotated .dts can be compiled
> >> + run_dtc_test --annotate -o sourceoutput.test.annotate.dts sourceoutput.dts
> >
> > 1) Looks like you forgot to git add sourceoutput.dts
>
> sourceoutput.dts is an existing .dts that I used again. But it looks like a bad
> choice - I think I should just use include0.dts, as you suggested.
Ok.
> > 2) All your generated files should be named *.test.dts, so that make
> > clean will get rid of them.
>
> Will fix.
Ok.
> >> + run_dtc_test -o sourceoutput.test.annotate.dts.test.dts sourceoutput.test.annotate.dts
> >> +
> >> + # verify annotated .dts can be stripped to match non-annotated
> >> + run_dtc_test -o includes.dts include0.dts
> >> + run_dtc_test --annotate -o includes.annotate.dts include0.dts
> >> + run_dtc_test -o includes.annotate_undo.dts includes.annotate.dts
> >> + run_wrap_test cmp includes.dts includes.annotate_undo.dts
> >
> > So, this checks that annotate doesn't break the semantic parts of the
> > tree, which is a good test.
> >
> > But I was suggesting a canned example, including the annotations to
> > check for regressions in the annotation generation itself.
>
> OK, I think I understand now. Add a test to make sure that the annotation is
> correct. This will be interesting because the source path in the annotation
> is an absolute path, including the location of the dtc git repository. The
> way that I strip off the location of the dtc git repository in my personal
> world is a bit ugly. I'll think about how to do this.
Hm, yeah. I thought we only stored relative paths internally, unless
absolute ones were supplied - but looking at srcpos.c I'm not so
sure. The file path stuff is actually pretty hard to follow.
If we are using relative paths everywhere, we should maybe stop that -
although it might make the relative open stuff harder :/
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
pgpFV1JQOZwR6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
