On 27 August 2015 at 22:07, Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> wrote: > Use the sandbox environment for the basic tests. > > Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <n...@ti.com> > --- > New patch. > > test/dm/Makefile | 1 + > test/dm/remoteproc.c | 67 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 test/dm/remoteproc.c
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> Tested-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> Nit below. > > diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile > index eda964318593..7b3626cb3294 100644 > --- a/test/dm/Makefile > +++ b/test/dm/Makefile > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DM_MMC) += mmc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_DM_PCI) += pci.o > obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += ram.o > obj-y += regmap.o > +obj-$(CONFIG_REMOTEPROC) += remoteproc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_RESET) += reset.o > obj-$(CONFIG_DM_RTC) += rtc.o > obj-$(CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH) += sf.o > diff --git a/test/dm/remoteproc.c b/test/dm/remoteproc.c > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..924eae854078 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/test/dm/remoteproc.c > @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ > +/* > + * (C) Copyright 2015 > + * Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/ > + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ > + */ > +#include <common.h> > +#include <dm.h> > +#include <errno.h> > +#include <remoteproc.h> > +#include <dm/test.h> > +#include <test/ut.h> > +/** > + * dm_test_remoteproc_base() - test the operations after initializations > + * @uts: unit test state > + * > + * Return: 0 if test passed, else error > + */ > +static int dm_test_remoteproc_base(struct unit_test_state *uts) > +{ > + if (!rproc_is_initialized()) > + ut_assertok(rproc_init()); > + > + /* Ensure we are initialized */ > + ut_asserteq(true, rproc_is_initialized()); > + > + > + /* platform data device 1 */ > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(0)); > + /* -> invalid attempt tests.. */ > + ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_start(0)); > + ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_ping(0)); > + /* Valid tests.. */ > + ut_assertok(rproc_load(0, 1, 0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_start(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_ping(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(0)); > + > + /* dt device device 1 */ > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_load(1, 1, 0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_start(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_ping(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(1)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(1)); > + > + /* dt device device 2 */ > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(0)); > + /* -> invalid attempt tests.. */ > + ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_start(0)); > + ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_ping(0)); > + /* Valid tests.. */ You don't need a period at the end of these comments\ > + ut_assertok(rproc_load(2, 1, 0)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_start(2)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(2)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_ping(2)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_reset(2)); > + ut_assertok(rproc_stop(2)); Would it be worth having a test that goes through things in the wrong sequence? It's up to you. BTW you don't have to put all your tests in one function, e.g. if some have a different purpose you can put them in a separate function. > + > + return 0; > +} > +DM_TEST(dm_test_remoteproc_base, DM_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | DM_TESTF_SCAN_FDT); > -- > 2.1.4 > Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
