> >>>> + ret = init_sgt_bit(&sgt_bit, fake_bit, FAKE_BIT_SIZE); > >>>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0); > >>> > >>> This is not fpga function, do we need the ASSERT? > >>> > >> > >> You're right. I'll change it to EXPECT. > > > > Mm.. I think we may move the sgt initialization in .suite_init, and just > > return ERROR for failure. Does it help to quickly find out this is an > > ENV error, not a test case failure? > > I looked through the documentation for guidelines on how to handle > initialization errors, but found only the eeprom example where KUNIT_ASSERT > is used to handle errors in eeprom_buffer_test_init(). Existing test suites > seem to use different approaches to handle initialization errors. Some > return an error code, while others use KUnit assertions. > > I'm more inclined to follow the example in the documentation and use > KUnit assertions. Does this approach work for you? It's good to me. > > > After some thought, I'm restructuring the code to test single components > in isolation before testing them together. In this way, I think the test > suite will be more in line with the unit testing methodology. > > > Thanks, > Marco >
