Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-78779-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Message-ID: <956f2b88-8b52-45b3-a27d-fa8e75a02642@opensource.cirrus.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 17:02:03 +0000
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] ASoC: cs-amp-lib: Add KUnit test for calibration
 helpers
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
CC: <tiwai@suse.com>, <linux-sound@vger.kernel.org>,
        <alsa-devel@alsa-project.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <patches@opensource.cirrus.com>
References: <20240223153910.2063698-1-rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <20240223153910.2063698-7-rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
 <ZdjMIVYp7Qb/Tt9d@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
From: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@opensource.cirrus.com>
In-Reply-To: <ZdjMIVYp7Qb/Tt9d@finisterre.sirena.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 23/02/2024 16:47, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 03:39:10PM +0000, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> 
>> +config SND_SOC_CS_AMP_LIB_TEST
>> +	tristate "KUnit test for Cirrus Logic cs-amp-lib"
>> +	depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST || KUNIT
> 
> Should this not depend unconditionally on KUNIT rather than KUNIT or
> some other stuff?  ie
> 
> 	depends on ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
> 	depends on KUNIT
> 
> or equivalent.
> 

Now I look at it again, it's not correct. It's the ACPI || COMPILE_TEST
that is bogus.

>> +#define TYPESAFE_ACTIVATE_STATIC_STUB_PTR(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn)		\
>> +	do {									\
>> +		typecheck_fn(typeof(fn_ptr), replacement_fn);			\
>> +		__kunit_activate_static_stub(test, fn_ptr, replacement_fn);	\
>> +	} while (0)
> 
> Should this be somewhere more generic in the kunit headers?

Damn, I meant to change this. I did a patch a while ago to fix
kunit_activate_static_stub() so that it worked but it takes a really
long time for kunit patches to end up in the mainline kernel. Hence this
was a temporary workaround. I noticed my fix has gone in at last but I
forgot to remove this workaround.

Can you skip this patch and take the others (assuming you are happy with
them) and I'll fixup and resubmit this test later.