From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
These have now been demoted to debug and are normally hidden. Drop the
assertions entirely.
Suggested-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
---
drivers/of/unittest.c | 28 ----------------------------
1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
index 0060334a98a7..5386efeaf710 100644
--- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
+++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
@@ -1844,26 +1844,10 @@ static void __init of_unittest_overlay_gpio(void)
unittest(overlay_data_apply("overlay_gpio_02b", NULL),
"Adding overlay 'overlay_gpio_02b' failed\n");
- /*
- * messages are the result of the probes, after the
- * driver is registered
- */
-
- EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-B-input): hogged as input\n");
-
- EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-A-input): hogged as input\n");
-
ret = platform_driver_register(&unittest_gpio_driver);
if (unittest(ret == 0, "could not register unittest gpio driver\n"))
return;
- EXPECT_END(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-A-input): hogged as input\n");
- EXPECT_END(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-B-input): hogged as input\n");
-
unittest(probe_pass_count + 2 == unittest_gpio_probe_pass_count,
"unittest_gpio_probe() failed or not called\n");
@@ -1888,17 +1872,11 @@ static void __init of_unittest_overlay_gpio(void)
probe_pass_count = unittest_gpio_probe_pass_count;
chip_request_count = unittest_gpio_chip_request_count;
- EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-D-input): hogged as input\n");
-
/* overlay_gpio_03 contains gpio node and child gpio hog node */
unittest(overlay_data_apply("overlay_gpio_03", NULL),
"Adding overlay 'overlay_gpio_03' failed\n");
- EXPECT_END(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-D-input): hogged as input\n");
-
unittest(probe_pass_count + 1 == unittest_gpio_probe_pass_count,
"unittest_gpio_probe() failed or not called\n");
@@ -1935,17 +1913,11 @@ static void __init of_unittest_overlay_gpio(void)
* - processing gpio for overlay_gpio_04b
*/
- EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-C-input): hogged as input\n");
-
/* overlay_gpio_04b contains child gpio hog node */
unittest(overlay_data_apply("overlay_gpio_04b", NULL),
"Adding overlay 'overlay_gpio_04b' failed\n");
- EXPECT_END(KERN_DEBUG,
- "gpio-<<int>> (line-C-input): hogged as input\n");
-
unittest(chip_request_count + 1 == unittest_gpio_chip_request_count,
"unittest_gpio_chip_request() called %d times (expected 1 time)\n",
unittest_gpio_chip_request_count - chip_request_count);
--
2.39.2
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:36 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
>
> These have now been demoted to debug and are normally hidden. Drop the
> assertions entirely.
>
> Suggested-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/of/unittest.c | 28 ----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
Why is this a separate patch? Don't I get at least 5 days to
review/ack changes in drivers/of/?
Rob
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 7:01 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:36 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> >
> > These have now been demoted to debug and are normally hidden. Drop the
> > assertions entirely.
> >
> > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > drivers/of/unittest.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
>
> Why is this a separate patch? Don't I get at least 5 days to
> review/ack changes in drivers/of/?
>
Sorry, my bad, I queued the previous one through the GPIO tree after
it was reviewed here thinking the unittests bits are trivial. I can
back it out if you insist or you can ack this one and the end effect
is the same? I will pay attention in the future.
Bart
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:15 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 7:01 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:36 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > These have now been demoted to debug and are normally hidden. Drop the
> > > assertions entirely.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>
> > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/of/unittest.c | 28 ----------------------------
> > > 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
> >
> > Why is this a separate patch? Don't I get at least 5 days to
> > review/ack changes in drivers/of/?
> >
>
> Sorry, my bad, I queued the previous one through the GPIO tree after
> it was reviewed here thinking the unittests bits are trivial. I can
> back it out if you insist or you can ack this one and the end effect
> is the same? I will pay attention in the future.
I'd prefer it to be squashed, but either way:
Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]>