Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 26 Feb 2020 10:42:06 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
To:     frowand.list@gmail.com
Cc:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] of: unittest: add overlay gpio test to catch gpio
 hog problem
Message-ID: <20200226164206.GA10128@bogus>
References: <1582224021-12827-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
 <1582224021-12827-2-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1582224021-12827-2-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 12:40:20 -0600, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> 
> Geert reports that gpio hog nodes are not properly processed when
> the gpio hog node is added via an overlay reply and provides an
> RFC patch to fix the problem [1].
> 
> Add a unittest that shows the problem.  Unittest will report "1 failed"
> test before applying Geert's RFC patch and "0 failed" after applying
> Geert's RFC patch.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20191230133852.5890-1-geert+renesas@glider.be/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
> ---
> 
> changes since v1:
>   - base on 5.6-rc1
>   - fixed node names in overlays
>   - removed unused fields from struct unittest_gpio_dev
>   - of_unittest_overlay_gpio() cleaned up comments
>   - of_unittest_overlay_gpio() moved saving global values into
>     probe_pass_count and chip_request_count more tightly around
>     test code expected to trigger changes in the global values
> 
> v1 of this patch incorrectly reported that it had made changes
> since the RFC version, but it was mistakenly created from the
> wrong branch.
> 
> There are checkpatch warnings.
>   - New files are in a directory already covered by MAINTAINERS
>   - The undocumented compatibles are restricted to use by unittest
>     and should not be documented under Documentation
>   - The printk() KERN_<LEVEL> warnings are false positives.  The level
>     is supplied by a define parameter instead of a hard coded constant
>   - The lines over 80 characters are consistent with unittest.c style
> 
> This unittest was also valuable in that it allowed me to explore
> possible issues related to the proposed solution to the gpio hog
> problem.
> 
> 
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/Makefile             |   8 +-
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_01.dts  |  23 +++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_02a.dts |  16 ++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_02b.dts |  16 ++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_03.dts  |  23 +++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_04a.dts |  16 ++
>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_04b.dts |  16 ++
>  drivers/of/unittest.c                         | 253 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  8 files changed, 370 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_01.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_02a.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_02b.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_03.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_04a.dts
>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_gpio_04b.dts
> 

Applied, thanks.

Rob