On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 03:11:52PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote: > On 3/13/23 14:40, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2023 at 05:08:48PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 17:06:38 +0000 > > > Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > Ah. I forgot the tests that don't have a device so can't use devm. > > > > Why not? I have seen, IIRC, test cases inside the kernel that fakes the device > > for that. > > I'd appreciated any pointer for such an example if you have one at hand. (I > can do the digging if you don't though!) > > I am not a fan of unit tests. They add huge amount of inertia to > development, and in worst case, they stop people from contributing where > improving a feature requires test code modification(s). And harder the test > code is to understand, worse the unwanted side-effects. Also, harder the > test code is to read, more time and effort it requires to analyze a test > failure... Hence, I am _very_ conservative what comes to adding size of test > code with anything that is not strictly required. > > After that being said, unit tests are a great tool when carefully used - and > I assume/hope stubbing a device for devm_ tests does not add much extra... > But let me see if I can find an example :) drivers/gpu/drm/tests/drm_managed_test.c ? (somewhere underneath: ret = platform_driver_register(&fake_platform_driver); which suggests... what exactly? :-) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
