[PATCH 0/8] clk: Add kunit tests for fixed rate and parent data

[Frank Rowand]

On 3/2/23 17:57, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 12:18:34)
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 1:44 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd at kernel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Rob Herring (2023-03-02 09:13:59)
>>>>
>>>> Good to see bindings for this. I've been meaning to do something about
>>>> the DT unittest ones being undocumented, but I hadn't really decided
>>>> whether it was worth writing schemas for them. The compatibles at
>>>> least show up with 'make dt_compatible_check'. Perhaps we want to just
>>>> define some vendor (not 'linux') that's an exception rather than
>>>> requiring schemas (actually, that already works for 'foo').
>>>
>>> Sure. Maybe "kunit" should be the vendor prefix? Or "dtbunit"?
>>
>> We'd want to use the same thing on the DT unittests or anything else
>> potentially. How about just 'test'?
> 
> Sounds good.
> 
>>
>>>> It's
>>>> likely that we want test DTs that fail normal checks and schemas get
>>>> in the way of that as we don't have a way to turn off checks.
>>>
>>> Having the schemas is nice to make sure tests that are expecting some
>>> binding are actually getting that. But supporting broken bindings is
>>> also important to test any error paths in functions that parse
>>> properties. Maybe we keep the schema and have it enforce that incorrect
>>> properties are being set?
>>
>> I wasn't suggesting throwing them out. More why I hadn't written any I guess.
>>
>>> Do we really need to test incorrect bindings? Doesn't the
>>> dt_bindings_check catch these problems so we don't have to write DTB
>>> verifiers in the kernel?
>>
>> Fair enough. Using my frequently stated position against me. :)
>>
>> I do have a secret plan to implement (debug) type checks into the
>> of_property_* APIs by extracting the type information from schemas
>> into C.
>>
> 
> Ok. I suspect we may want to test error paths though so I don't know

Yes, exactly.

> what to do here. For now I'll just leave the bindings in place and
> change the prefix to "test".
> 
>>
>>>> We already have GPIO tests in the DT unittests, so why is clocks
>>>> different? Or should the GPIO tests be moved out (yes, please!)?
>>>
>>> Ah I didn't notice the GPIO tests in there. There are i2c tests too,
>>> right? All I can say is clks are using kunit, that's the difference ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, they should perhaps all move to the subsystems.
> 
> Got it.
> 
>>
>>>> What happens when/if the DT unittest is converted to kunit? I think
>>>> that would look confusing from the naming. My initial thought is
>>>> 'kunit' should be dropped from the naming of a lot of this. Note that
>>>> the original kunit submission converted the DT unittests. I would
>>>> still like to see that happen. Frank disagreed over what's a unit test
>>>> or not, then agreed, then didn't... I don't really care. If there's a
>>>> framework to use, then we should use it IMO.
>>>
>>> Honestly I don't want to get involved in migrating the existing DT
>>> unittest code to kunit. I'm aware that it was attempted years ago when
>>> kunit was introduced. Maybe if the overlay route works well enough I can
>>> completely sidestep introducing any code in drivers/of/ besides some
>>> kunit wrappers for this. I'll cross my fingers!
>>
>> Yeah, I wasn't expecting you to. I just want to make sure this meshes
>> with any future conversion to kunit.
> 
> Phew!
> 
>>
>> There's also some plans to always populate the DT root node if not
>> present. That may help here. Or not. There's been a few versions
>> posted with Frank's in the last week or 2.
>>
> 
> Ok. I think I have some time to try this overlay approach so let me see
> what is needed.

Please avoid overlays.  See my other replies in this thread for why.