On 3/2/23 17:57, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 12:18:34) >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:44 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 09:13:59) >>>> >>>> Good to see bindings for this. I've been meaning to do something about >>>> the DT unittest ones being undocumented, but I hadn't really decided >>>> whether it was worth writing schemas for them. The compatibles at >>>> least show up with 'make dt_compatible_check'. Perhaps we want to just >>>> define some vendor (not 'linux') that's an exception rather than >>>> requiring schemas (actually, that already works for 'foo'). >>> >>> Sure. Maybe "kunit" should be the vendor prefix? Or "dtbunit"? >> >> We'd want to use the same thing on the DT unittests or anything else >> potentially. How about just 'test'? > > Sounds good. > >> >>>> It's >>>> likely that we want test DTs that fail normal checks and schemas get >>>> in the way of that as we don't have a way to turn off checks. >>> >>> Having the schemas is nice to make sure tests that are expecting some >>> binding are actually getting that. But supporting broken bindings is >>> also important to test any error paths in functions that parse >>> properties. Maybe we keep the schema and have it enforce that incorrect >>> properties are being set? >> >> I wasn't suggesting throwing them out. More why I hadn't written any I guess. >> >>> Do we really need to test incorrect bindings? Doesn't the >>> dt_bindings_check catch these problems so we don't have to write DTB >>> verifiers in the kernel? >> >> Fair enough. Using my frequently stated position against me. :) >> >> I do have a secret plan to implement (debug) type checks into the >> of_property_* APIs by extracting the type information from schemas >> into C. >> > > Ok. I suspect we may want to test error paths though so I don't know Yes, exactly. > what to do here. For now I'll just leave the bindings in place and > change the prefix to "test". > >> >>>> We already have GPIO tests in the DT unittests, so why is clocks >>>> different? Or should the GPIO tests be moved out (yes, please!)? >>> >>> Ah I didn't notice the GPIO tests in there. There are i2c tests too, >>> right? All I can say is clks are using kunit, that's the difference ;-) >> >> Yeah, they should perhaps all move to the subsystems. > > Got it. > >> >>>> What happens when/if the DT unittest is converted to kunit? I think >>>> that would look confusing from the naming. My initial thought is >>>> 'kunit' should be dropped from the naming of a lot of this. Note that >>>> the original kunit submission converted the DT unittests. I would >>>> still like to see that happen. Frank disagreed over what's a unit test >>>> or not, then agreed, then didn't... I don't really care. If there's a >>>> framework to use, then we should use it IMO. >>> >>> Honestly I don't want to get involved in migrating the existing DT >>> unittest code to kunit. I'm aware that it was attempted years ago when >>> kunit was introduced. Maybe if the overlay route works well enough I can >>> completely sidestep introducing any code in drivers/of/ besides some >>> kunit wrappers for this. I'll cross my fingers! >> >> Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I just want to make sure this meshes >> with any future conversion to kunit. > > Phew! > >> >> There's also some plans to always populate the DT root node if not >> present. That may help here. Or not. There's been a few versions >> posted with Frank's in the last week or 2. >> > > Ok. I think I have some time to try this overlay approach so let me see > what is needed. Please avoid overlays. See my other replies in this thread for why.
