On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 8:24 PM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 1/28/20 1:53 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 11:35 AM <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Frank Rowand on January 28, 2020 11:37 AM > >>> > >>> On 1/28/20 1:19 AM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:40 AM Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> ... > >>>> we could add Kconfigs to control this, but the compiler nevertheless > >>>> complains because it doesn't know what phase KUnit runs in. > >>>> > >>>> Is there any way to tell the compiler that it is okay for non __init > >>>> code to call __init code? I would prefer not to have a duplicate > >>>> version of all the KUnit libraries with all the symbols marked __init. > >>> > >>> I'm not sure. The build messages have always been useful and valid in > >>> my context, so I never thought to consider that possibility. > >>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >> > >> I'm not sure there's a restriction on non __init code calling __init > >> code. In init/main.c arch_call_reset_init() is in __init, and it calls > >> rest_init which is non __init, without any special handling. > >> > >> Is the compiler complaint mentioned above related to calling > >> into __init code, or with some other issue? > > > > I distinctly remember having the compiler complain at me when I was > > messing around with the device tree unit tests because of KUnit > > calling code marked as __init. Maybe it's time to start converting > > those to KUnit to force the issue? Frank, does that work for you? > > I have agreed to try converting the devicetree unittest to KUnit. > > Now that KUnit is in 5.5, I think there is a solid foundation for > me to proceed. Awesome! Last time we talked (offline), it sounded like you had a clear idea of what you wanted to do; nevertheless, feel free to reuse anything from my attempt at it, if you find anything useful, or otherwise rope me in if you have any questions, comments, or complaints.
