On 2/2/22 2:29 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 12:38 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 2/2/22 5:31 AM, Naresh Kamboju wrote: >>> Linaro started doing Linux kernel Functional Validation (LKFT). >>> As part of LKFT recently we have enabled CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST=y in our >>> daily test CI. >>> >>> The output of the test looks as below. The current problem is that we >>> have a hard time to see (grep) pass/fail for each individual test. We >>> only see a summary at the end with x pass and y fails. >> >> The FAIL messages are printed at loglevel KERN_ERR. The pass messages >> are printed at loglevel KERN_DEBUG. To see the pass messages, set the >> loglevel to allow debug output. > > That alone is not enough. Unless there's a DEBUG define, the > pr_debug() is going to print nothing. I almost mentioned that detail, but decided I didn't need to given my reference below to dynamic debug. > >> Unfortunately this can add lots of debug output, unless you use dynamic >> debug to only enable debug for drivers/of/unittest.o. There are only >> a few other pr_debug() messages in unittest. > > Dynamic debug is one option. Another would be a module param to enable > running the tests I could implement that. But that does not address the issue of the individual test pass messages being printed at loglevel KERN_DEBUG. Are you thinking I should add a second module param that would enable printing the test pass messages at the same loglevel as the test fail messages? I'm not up to date on module params. I'm assuming that I can pass these new params on the boot command line if I build unittest as a built-in instead of as a module. > Then it can be built, but has to be explicitly > enabled at boot time. > A 3rd option is making it work as a module, then > it's run when loaded. (That was the original plan.) > >> I think a better solution would be to add a config option, something >> like CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST_VERBOSE, that would print the pass messages >> at loglevel KERN_ERR. I'll submit a patch for that and see what the >> review responses are. > > Nak for another config option. Because? > >>> We would like to get your opinion of how hard it would be to include >>> that in the output per test. Maybe like TAP version 14? >>> Another question would be how hard do you think it would be to rewrite >>> this to a kunit test, if even applicable? I have provided the kunit >>> output links at the end of this email. >> >> Devicetree unittests were suggested as a good candidate as a first >> test to convert to kunit when kunit was implemented. Brendan tried >> to convert it, and we quickly saw that it was not a good candidate. >> Devicetree unittests do not fit the unit test mold; they are a very >> different creature. Brendan has a good term for this type of test >> (Brendan, was it "acceptance" test?). > > I thought you ended up agreeing with using kunit? Whatever you want to Not the kunit _framework_. > call the DT tests, there's not really any good reason to do our own > pass/fail messages. Yes, I would like to change the pass fail messages to follow the same standard as kunit, so that the test frameworks could easily process the unittest results. That has been on my todo list. > > Rob > . >
