Quoting Maxime Ripard (2022-02-21 07:12:59) > Hi Stephen, > > Thanks for your review > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 06:20:46PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > It would also be good to add a test that tries to set the clk rate with > > clk_set_rate() after a range has been set that is outside the acceptable > > range and verify that it fails, and one that tries to set it within the > > range and make sure it succeeds (and changes it to be exactly what was > > set). > > Do we expect it to fail though? > > If we do: > > clk_set_range_range(clk, 1000, 2000); > clk_set_rate(3000); > > The current behaviour is that the rate is going to be rounded to 2000, > but it doesn't fail. > > Or is it what you meant by fail? ie, that the return code is 0, but the > rate isn't what we asked for? Yeah sorry for not being clear. I meant that it would be constrained to the range from before. > > > We want to test the failure paths as well, to make sure we don't start > > causing them to pass, unless it's expected. > > Do you have any other failure condition you want to test? I already > tried to come up with those I could think of, but I clearly missed some > if you said that :) Not really! :)
