On Fri, 3 May 2024 at 08:36, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting David Gow (2024-05-01 00:55:10)
> > On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 at 07:24, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
> > > index 2d8f756aab56..282befa17edf 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
> > > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/index.rst
> > > @@ -9,11 +9,15 @@ API Reference
> > > test
> > > resource
> > > functionredirection
> > > + of
> > >
> > >
> > > This page documents the KUnit kernel testing API. It is divided into the
> > > following sections:
> > >
> > > +Core KUnit API
> > > +==============
> > > +
> > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/test.rst
> > >
> > > - Documents all of the standard testing API
> > > @@ -25,3 +29,10 @@ Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/resource.rst
> > > Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/functionredirection.rst
> > >
> > > - Documents the KUnit Function Redirection API
> > > +
> > > +Driver KUnit API
> > > +================
> >
> > If we're adding a separate 'Driver' section here, it's probably
> > sensible to move the existing device/driver helper documentation here,
> > rather than leaving it in resource.rst as-is. I'm happy to do that in
> > a follow-up patch, though.
>
> To clarify, you're talking about "Managed Devices"? Looks like that can
> be a follow-up to split it into a new file and then put it here. If
> you're happy to do that then I'll leave it to you.
>
Yeah, this is "Managed Devices". I'll send out a follow-up patch to
the documentation once this has landed so we don't conflict.
> >
> > > +
> > > +Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/of.rst
> > > +
> > > + - Documents the KUnit device tree (OF) API
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/of.rst b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/of.rst
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..8587591c3e78
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/api/of.rst
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
> > > +.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +
> > > +====================
> > > +Device Tree (OF) API
> > > +====================
> > > +
> > > +The KUnit device tree API is used to test device tree (of_*) dependent code.
> > > +
> > > +.. kernel-doc:: include/kunit/of.h
> > > + :internal:
> > > +
> > > +.. kernel-doc:: drivers/of/of_kunit.c
> > > + :export:
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/Makefile b/drivers/of/Makefile
> > > index 251d33532148..0dfd05079313 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/Makefile
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/Makefile
> > > @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ obj-y += kexec.o
> > > endif
> > > endif
> > >
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_KUNIT) += of_kunit.o
> >
> > I'm tempted to have this either live in lib/kunit, or be behind a
> > separate Kconfig option, particularly since this will end up as a
> > separate module, as-is.
>
> Is the idea to have a single module that has all the kunit "stuff" in it
> so we can just load one module and be done? Is there any discussion on
> the list I can read to see the argument for this?
I don't think there's been any specific discussion around making sure
KUnit lives in one module: this is just the first patch which would
make CONFIG_KUNIT build several separate ones.
Personally, I'd prefer to have the CONFIG_KUNIT option only build one
module itself, and otherwise keep the corresponding code in lib/kunit,
just so it's clearer what side effects enabling / disabling it has.
But ultimately, this really is just another side effect of the
discussion below about whether this is integrated as "part of KUnit",
in which case it can live in lib/kunit and be under CONFIG_KUNIT, or
if it's a part of of, in which case this is fine (though I'd rather it
be behind a CONFIG_OF_KUNIT_HELPERS or similar, personally).
> >
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_OF_KUNIT_TEST) += of_test.o
> > >
> > > obj-$(CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST) += unittest-data/
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/of_kunit.c b/drivers/of/of_kunit.c
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..f63527268a51
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/of_kunit.c
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
> > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> > > +/*
> > > + * Test managed device tree APIs
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > +#include <linux/of.h>
> > > +#include <linux/of_fdt.h>
> > > +
> > > +#include <kunit/of.h>
> > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > +#include <kunit/resource.h>
> > > +
> > > +static void of_overlay_fdt_apply_kunit_exit(void *ovcs_id)
> > > +{
> > > + of_overlay_remove(ovcs_id);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/**
> > > + * of_overlay_fdt_apply_kunit() - Test managed of_overlay_fdt_apply()
> > > + * @test: test context
> > > + * @overlay_fdt: device tree overlay to apply
> > > + * @overlay_fdt_size: size in bytes of @overlay_fdt
> > > + * @ovcs_id: identifier of overlay, used to remove the overlay
> > > + *
> > > + * Just like of_overlay_fdt_apply(), except the overlay is managed by the test
> > > + * case and is automatically removed with of_overlay_remove() after the test
> > > + * case concludes.
> > > + *
> > > + * Return: 0 on success, negative errno on failure
> > > + */
> > > +int of_overlay_fdt_apply_kunit(struct kunit *test, void *overlay_fdt,
> > > + u32 overlay_fdt_size, int *ovcs_id)
> >
> > We're using kunit_ as a prefix for the device helpers (e.g.
> > kunit_device_register()), so it may make sense to do that here, too.
> > It's not as important as with the platform_device helpers, which are
> > very similar to the existing device ones, but if we want to treat
> > these as "part of KUnit which deals with of_overlays", rather than
> > "part of "of_overlay which deals with KUnit", this may fit better.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I'm fine either way with the name. I recall that last time we put a
> kunit postfix to make it easier to tab complete or something like that.
>
> I find it hard to understand the distinction you're trying to make
> though. I guess you're saying the difference is what subsystem maintains
> the code, kunit or of. When they're simple wrappers it is easier to
> extract them out to lib/kunit and thus they can (should?) have the kunit
> prefix. Maybe that always holds true, because kunit wrappers are
> typically another API consumer, and if the API is exported either in a
> linux/ header or as an exported symbol it can be wrapped in lib/kunit
> easily. Did I follow correctly? When would of_overlay ever deal with
> KUnit?
Yeah, it's about what subsystem is maintaining the code, which impacts
a bit of the naming, and depends a bit on the intended use-case.
If these helpers are intended to test a particular subsystem, and are
of no use outside it, it seems clear that they should be a part of
that subsystem. For instance, the drm_kunit_helpers.
If they're exposing kunit-specific wrappers around core APIs, it makes
sense for them to be a part of KUnit. (The managed devices stuff, for
instance, as the device model is used by pretty much everything. It
also requires a KUnit-managed struct kunit_bus, which is hooked into
KUnit at a lower level, so needs to be a part of kunit.)
It gets more complicated for cases like of, where the helpers are both
used for testing of itself, and for testing drivers which rely on it.
So I think it could go either way. My gut instinct is that
platform_device is generic enough to be a part of KUnit (to match the
existing managed device stuff). For of_overlay, I could go either way,
and just leaned to having it be part of KUnit as that's a bit more
common, and it matches, e.g., the headers and documentation being
under include/kunit and dev-tools/kunit respectively.
> > > diff --git a/include/kunit/of.h b/include/kunit/of.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..9981442ba578
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/include/kunit/of.h
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
> > > +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 */
> > > +#ifndef _KUNIT_OF_H
> > > +#define _KUNIT_OF_H
> > > +
> > > +#include <kunit/test.h>
> > > +
> > > +struct device_node;
> > > +
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_OF
> >
> > Do we also need to check for CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY here?
> >
> > Also, how useful is it to compile but skip tests without
> > CONFIG_OF{,_OVERLAY} enabled? The other option is a compile error,
> > which may make it more obvious that these are disabled if it's
> > unexpected.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> I've tried to make it so that tests skip if an option isn't enabled. I
> suppose the CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY check can be hoisted up here as well so
> that the skip isn't buried in lower levels.
Yeah, my feeling here is that if we're going to declare functions
which interact with of_overlay, we should have the 'skip' fallbacks
occur for either both CONFIG_OF and CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY here, or neither
(and require the test use its own #include guards). Having CONFIG_OF
checked here, and CONFIG_OF_OVERLAY checked elsewhere seems confusing
to me.
Cheers,
-- David
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
