Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2023-03-20 22:45:52) > Morning Stephen, > > On 3/20/23 21:23, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2023-03-18 23:36:20) > >>> > >>> I think you would have an easier time if you just copied and renamed > >>> them into the kunit folder as an preparation series. > >> > >> Yes. That would simplify the syncing between the trees. It slightly bugs > >> me to add dublicate code in kernel-but the clean-up series for DRM users > >> could be prepared at the same time. It would be even possible to just > >> change the drm-helper to be a wrapper for the generic one - and leave > >> the callers intact - although it leaves some seemingly unnecessary > >> "onion code" there. > >> > >>> That way, you wouldn't have to coordinate DRM, CCF and IIO, you'd just > >>> create new helpers that can be reused/converted to by everyone eventually > >> > >> Yes. Thanks - I think I may go with this approach for the v5 :) > > > > Which kunit directory? > > I was thinking of adding the platform_device.h (I liked your suggestion) > in the include/kunit/ Ok, thanks for clarifying. > > > I imagine if there are conflicts they will be > > trivial so it probably doesn't matter. > > Probably so. Still, I am not the one who needs to deal with the > conflicts. Hence I like at least asking if people see good way to avoid > them in the first place. Same for me. I'm not the maintainer of the drivers/base directory. > > Besides, I was not sure if you were planning to add similar helper or > just wrappers to individual functions. Wanted to ping you just in case > this has some impact to what you do. I don't have a need to bind a device to a driver to satisfy devm APIs currently. I could probably use it though to test some devm code in the clk APIs. The only impact is that we're modifying the same files. > > > Have you Cced kunit folks and the > > list on the kunit patches? They may have some opinion. > > This patch was should have contained the > include/kunit/platform_device.h. That file was pulling the Kunit people > in recipients but I messed up things with last minute changes so both > the header and people were dropped. I'll fix this for v5. > Ok, I'll be on the lookout for v5. From what I can tell kunit goes through the kernel selftest tree and there isn't a kunit git tree as such.
