On 1/22/21 9:07 PM, 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. I have already replied several times that this should not make sense to anyone unless they read unittest.c and see in detail how these FDTs are abused. I have stated several times that the usage is bizarre and not normal. > > 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. > The unittest stuff is bizarre, but it is correct. This patch series does not alter the current usage. -Frank
