On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 07:12, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting David Gow (2023-03-02 23:14:55) > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:38, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Document the linux,kunit board compatible string. This board is loaded > > > into the Linux kernel when KUnit is testing devicetree dependent code. > > > > As with the series as a whole, this might need to change a little bit > > if we want to either use devicetree overlays and/or other > > architectures. > > > > That being said, I'm okay with having this until then: the only real > > topic for bikeshedding is the name. > > - Is KUnit best as a board name, or part of the vendor name? > > - Do we want to include the architecture in the name? > > Should it be "linux,kunit", "linux-kunit,uml", "linux,kunit-uml", etc? > > I think I will drop this patch. I have overlays working. I hijacked > of_core_init() to load the testcase data from drivers/of/unittest-data > and made a container node for kunit overlays to apply to. Makes sense to me, thanks! Looking forward to seeing how the overlays work in practice!
