On 23-01-21, 14:07, David Gibson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 04:20:35PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > In order to build-test the same unit-test files using fdtoverlay tool, > > move the device nodes from the existing overlay_base.dts and > > testcases_common.dts files to .dtsi files. The .dts files now include > > the new .dtsi files, resulting in exactly the same behavior as earlier. > > > > The .dtsi files can now be reused for compile time tests using > > fdtoverlay (will be done in a later patch). > > > > This is required because the base files passed to fdtoverlay tool > > shouldn't be overlays themselves (i.e. shouldn't have the /plugin/; > > tag). > > > > Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts | 90 +----------------- > > drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_common.dtsi | 91 +++++++++++++++++++ > > drivers/of/unittest-data/testcases.dts | 17 +--- > > .../of/unittest-data/testcases_common.dtsi | 18 ++++ > > 4 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_common.dtsi > > create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/testcases_common.dtsi > > > > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts b/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts > > index 99ab9d12d00b..ab9014589c5d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts > > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts > > @@ -2,92 +2,4 @@ > > /dts-v1/; > > /plugin/; > > This still makes no sense to me. Is this data intended as a base > tree, or as an overlay? If it's an overlay, what are the constraints > on the base tree it's supposed to apply to. > > This patch is treating it as both in different places, but that's such > a bizarre usecase it needs detailed justification. It really looks > like the unittest stuff is doing some very bogus stuff that should be > fixed first, before trying to do this on top. I will let Frank respond to that :) -- viresh
