On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 05:38:15PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> To fully exercise common clk framework code in KUnit we need to
> associate 'struct device' pointers with 'struct device_node' pointers so
> that things like clk_get() can parse DT nodes for 'clocks' and so that
> clk providers can use DT to provide clks; the most common mode of
> operation for clk providers.
>
> Adding support to KUnit so that it loads a DTB is fairly simple after
> commit b31297f04e86 ("um: Add devicetree support"). We can simply pass a
> pre-compiled deviectree blob (DTB) on the kunit.py commandline and UML
> will load it. The problem is that tests won't know that the commandline
> has been modified, nor that a DTB has been loaded. Take a different
> approach so that tests can skip if a DTB hasn't been loaded.
>
> Reuse the Makefile logic from the OF unittests to build a DTB into the
> kernel. This DTB will be for the mythical machine "linux,kunit", i.e.
> the devicetree for the KUnit "board". In practice, it is a dtsi file
> that will gather includes for kunit tests that rely in part on a
> devicetree being loaded. The devicetree should only be loaded if
> CONFIG_OF_KUNIT=y. Make that a choice config parallel to the existing
> CONFIG_OF_UNITTEST so that only one devicetree can be loaded in the
> system at a time. Similarly, the kernel commandline option to load a
> DTB is ignored if CONFIG_OF_KUNIT is enabled so that only one DTB is
> loaded at a time.
>
> Add a simple unit test to confirm that the DTB loading worked. Future
> tests will add to the kunit.dtsi file to include their specific test
> nodes.
>
> Cc: Richard Weinberger <rich...@nod.at>
> Cc: Anton Ivanov <anton.iva...@cambridgegreys.com>
> Cc: Johannes Berg <johan...@sipsolutions.net>
> Cc: Vincent Whitchurch <vincent.whitchu...@axis.com>
> Cc: Rob Herring <robh...@kernel.org>
> Cc: Frank Rowand <frowand.l...@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sb...@kernel.org>
> ---
> arch/um/kernel/dtb.c | 29 +++++++++++++++--
> drivers/of/Kconfig | 26 ++++++++++++++++
> drivers/of/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/of/kunit/.kunitconfig | 4 +++
> drivers/of/kunit/Makefile | 4 +++
> drivers/of/kunit/kunit.dtsi | 8 +++++
> drivers/of/kunit/kunit.dtso | 4 +++
> drivers/of/kunit/uml_dtb_test.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 8 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 drivers/of/kunit/.kunitconfig
> create mode 100644 drivers/of/kunit/Makefile
> create mode 100644 drivers/of/kunit/kunit.dtsi
> create mode 100644 drivers/of/kunit/kunit.dtso
> create mode 100644 drivers/of/kunit/uml_dtb_test.c
>
> diff --git a/arch/um/kernel/dtb.c b/arch/um/kernel/dtb.c
> index 484141b06938..ee63951b12df 100644
> --- a/arch/um/kernel/dtb.c
> +++ b/arch/um/kernel/dtb.c
> @@ -15,9 +15,32 @@ void uml_dtb_init(void)
> long long size;
> void *area;
>
> - area = uml_load_file(dtb, &size);
> - if (!area)
> - return;
> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_KUNIT)) {
> + /*
> + * __dtbo_kunit_begin[] and __dtbo_kunit_end[] are magically
> + * created by cmd_dt_S_dtbo in scripts/Makefile.lib from the
> + * drivers/of/kunit/kunit.dtsi file.
> + */
> + extern uint8_t __dtbo_kunit_begin[];
> + extern uint8_t __dtbo_kunit_end[];
> +
> + size = __dtbo_kunit_end - __dtbo_kunit_begin;
> + if (!size) {
> + pr_warn("%s: kunit testcases is empty\n", __func__);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + /* creating copy */
> + area = memblock_alloc(size, 8);
> + if (!area)
> + return;
> +
> + memcpy(area, __dtbo_kunit_begin, size);
> + } else {
> + area = uml_load_file(dtb, &size);
> + if (!area)
> + return;
> + }
>
> if (!early_init_dt_scan(area)) {
> pr_err("invalid DTB %s\n", dtb);
> diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> index 80b5fd44ab1c..1f968b6a3dde 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> @@ -12,6 +12,20 @@ menuconfig OF
>
> if OF
>
> +choice
No. This needs to be reworked such that a kernel rebuild is not needed
to run different tests. I suspect that the overlay approach will do that
for you.
> + prompt "Devicetree Runtime Tests"
> + default OF_UNITTEST
> +
> +config OF_KUNIT
> + bool "Devicetree KUnit support" if KUNIT
> + depends on UML
This is not a great dependency either...
Rob
_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
