[PATCH v4 5/6] RISC-V: selftests: Convert hwprobe test to kselftest API

[Andrew Jones]

Returning (exiting with) negative exit codes isn't user friendly,
because the user must output the exit code with the shell, convert it
from its unsigned 8-bit value back to the negative value, and then
look up where that comes from in the code (which may be multiple
places). Use the kselftests TAP interface, instead.

Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <ajones at ventanamicro.com>
---
 .../testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c | 54 +++++++------------
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c
index 09f290a67420..4f15f1f3b4c3 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/riscv/hwprobe/hwprobe.c
@@ -2,6 +2,8 @@
 #include <stddef.h>
 #include <asm/hwprobe.h>
 
+#include "../../kselftest.h"
+
 /*
  * Rather than relying on having a new enough libc to define this, just do it
  * ourselves.  This way we don't need to be coupled to a new-enough libc to
@@ -16,6 +18,9 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	unsigned long cpus;
 	long out;
 
+	ksft_print_header();
+	ksft_set_plan(5);
+
 	/* Fake the CPU_SET ops. */
 	cpus = -1;
 
@@ -25,13 +30,16 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 	 */
 	for (long i = 0; i < 8; i++)
 		pairs[i].key = i;
+
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, &cpus, 0);
 	if (out != 0)
-		return -1;
+		ksft_exit_fail_msg("hwprobe() failed with %ld\n", out);
+
 	for (long i = 0; i < 4; ++i) {
 		/* Fail if the kernel claims not to recognize a base key. */
 		if ((i < 4) && (pairs[i].key != i))
-			return -2;
+			ksft_exit_fail_msg("Failed to recognize base key: key != i, "
+					   "key=%ld, i=%ld\n", pairs[i].key, i);
 
 		if (pairs[i].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR)
 			continue;
@@ -39,52 +47,30 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		if (pairs[i].value & RISCV_HWPROBE_BASE_BEHAVIOR_IMA)
 			continue;
 
-		return -3;
+		ksft_exit_fail_msg("Unexpected pair: (%ld, %ld)\n", pairs[i].key, pairs[i].value);
 	}
 
-	/*
-	 * This should also work with a NULL CPU set, but should not work
-	 * with an improperly supplied CPU set.
-	 */
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, 0, 0);
-	if (out != 0)
-		return -4;
+	ksft_test_result(out == 0, "NULL CPU set\n");
 
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 0, &cpus, 0);
-	if (out == 0)
-		return -5;
+	ksft_test_result(out != 0, "Bad CPU set\n");
 
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 8, 1, 0, 0);
-	if (out == 0)
-		return -6;
+	ksft_test_result(out != 0, "NULL CPU set with non-zero count\n");
 
-	/*
-	 * Check that keys work by providing one that we know exists, and
-	 * checking to make sure the resultig pair is what we asked for.
-	 */
 	pairs[0].key = RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR;
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 1, 1, &cpus, 0);
-	if (out != 0)
-		return -7;
-	if (pairs[0].key != RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR)
-		return -8;
+	ksft_test_result(out == 0 && pairs[0].key == RISCV_HWPROBE_KEY_BASE_BEHAVIOR,
+			 "Existing key is maintained\n");
 
-	/*
-	 * Check that an unknown key gets overwritten with -1,
-	 * but doesn't block elements after it.
-	 */
 	pairs[0].key = 0x5555;
 	pairs[1].key = 1;
 	pairs[1].value = 0xAAAA;
 	out = riscv_hwprobe(pairs, 2, 0, 0, 0);
-	if (out != 0)
-		return -9;
-
-	if (pairs[0].key != -1)
-		return -10;
-
-	if ((pairs[1].key != 1) || (pairs[1].value == 0xAAAA))
-		return -11;
+	ksft_test_result(out == 0 && pairs[0].key == -1 &&
+			 pairs[1].key == 1 && pairs[1].value != 0xAAAA,
+			 "Unknown key overwritten with -1 and doesn't block other elements\n");
 
-	return 0;
+	ksft_finished();
 }
-- 
2.41.0