On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 06:16:27AM +0000, Vaittinen, Matti wrote: > On 3/21/23 20:59, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2023-03-20 22:45:52) > >> 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. Thank you, folks, for doing this. Let's make Linux kernel greater (than it is already is). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
