On 3/21/23 20:59, Stephen Boyd wrote: > 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) >> 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. Thanks for clarifying this. >>> 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. Right. I am not sure what will be the best tree to carry the testability changes. It seems that all of the IIO-tests in v5 will depend on the kunit stuff, and I think I will also include the DRM test fixes in this series as well just to keep things sorted in my mailbox. Anyways, I hope to finish the changes for v5 soon(ish) - maybe already Today and in any case during this week. I'll be CC:ing you and Brendan with (relevant patches of) v5 as well. Yours, -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
