Hi Viresh, > On 23 July 2014 13:08, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Do you want to say that we have enough tests and we don't need > > more ? > > No. We don't have any tests at all :) Then we should encourage as many developers as possible to share their private tests with us. > > > I always thought that we shall have as much regression tests as > > possible. > > Yeah, tests are welcomed but the question is where should they get > added. Don't know if its common to add tests directly to kernel. There was a similar discussion with device tree and finally it was included in the mainline repository. > > And also if the test is really good, not discouraging your work. > > >> On 21 July 2014 12:32, Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > This commit adds first regression test "cpufreq_freq_test.sh" for > >> > the cpufreq subsystem. > >> > >> That's not enough, Tell us why we should continue reading this > >> mail.. > > > > Hmm... If "regression" and "test" don't catch the attention of a > > diligent maintainer, then I cannot do much more to encourage him to > > read the whole e-mail :-) > > What I meant to say was, your subject and body must be good enough > to answer most of the things. You don't have to tell much about the > implementation but other things should be pretty clear from logs. > > Your current logs are quite short for something that's not a normal > practice. It is hard for me to agree on this issue. > > > I can imagine that maintainers are very busy, therefore I've > > prepared README file with detailed description of the script > > operation. > > Yeah, a README is welcomed and would be useful for users as well.. > > >> I couldn't make out the purpose of this test and why we need it. > >> How do we ensure that "cpufreq attributes exported by sysfs are > >> exposing correct values"? > > > > First of all the cpufreq attributes are part of the subsystem API. > > There are systems which actually depend on them, so we would be > > better off to test if they work as intended. > > > > Secondly, the test takes those values and then with use of other > > attribute enforce the value, which is then read via cat'ing > > cpufreq_cur_freq. If any of the attributes is wrong then we will > > spot the error immediately. > > Shouldn't you use userspace governor then instead of performance? Performance assures that we will have the right frequency set. However, there can be a similar patch to use userspace governor and various load to fail if ondemand's frequency flipping is detected. > And then we don't need the gzip stuff at all. We can just set it to > the right freq and get current freq to see if it matches? Sometimes "interresting" things show up when you have 100% CPU load and you try to switch frequency. In my opinion usage of gzip makes the test more difficult to pass. > > And now that we are starting to get tests added into the kernel (will > still wait to see what Rafael has to advice), Ok. Lets wait for Rafael's opinion. > we better think of the > way these are going to get added. Probably a single script with > parameters like what to test? It is one possible solution, where another one is to run the all scripts in the directory. I'm curious about Rafael's opinion. > > >> And actually what do we mean by this statement even? What kind of > >> errors can be there in exposing these values. > > > > Errors with cpufreq and CCF cooperation - especially when some > > parts of cpufreq code uses direct write to MUX, DIV or PLL SoC > > registers. > > > > Also, one can check if permutations of changing all available > > frequencies are working properly. > > Yeah, that would be fine. Probably need to think more about scripts > name. -- Best regards, Lukasz Majewski Samsung R&D Institute Poland (SRPOL) | Linux Platform Group -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |