On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 11:12:16AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 07:57:10PM +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > > > +/** > > > > > + * test_kunit_helper_alloc_device - Allocate a mock device for a KUnit test > > > > > + * @test: The test context object > > > > > + * > > > > > + * This allocates a fake struct &device to create a mock for a KUnit > > > > > + * test. The device will also be bound to a fake driver. It will thus be > > > > > + * able to leverage the usual infrastructure and most notably the > > > > > + * device-managed resources just like a "real" device. > > > > > > > > What specific "usual infrastructure" are you wanting to access here? > > > > > > > > And again, if you want a fake device, make a virtual one, by just > > > > calling device_create(). > > > > > > > > Or are you wanting to do "more" with that device pointer than > > > > device_create() can give you? > > > > > > Personally, I was (am) only interested in devm_ unwinding. I guess the > > > device_create(), device_add(), device_remove()... (didn't study this > > > sequence in details so sorry if there is errors) could've been sufficient > > > for me. I haven't looked how much of the code that there is for 'platform > > > devices' should be duplicated to support that sequence for testability > > > purposes. > > > > Any device can access devm_ code, there's no need for it to be a > > platform device at all. > > Sure but the resources are only released if the device is part of a bus, > so it can't be a root_device (or bare device) either The resources are not cleaned up when the device is freed no matter if it's on a bus or not? If so, then that's a bug that needs to be fixed, and tested :) thanks, greg k-h
