Hi Marek, On 10 September 2018 at 01:38, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/02/2018 03:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Marek, > > Hi, > > > On 1 September 2018 at 16:45, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 09/01/2018 11:50 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>> Hi Marek, > >>> > >>> On 30 August 2018 at 07:42, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 08/30/2018 03:32 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > >>>>> Hi Marek, > >>>>> > >>>>> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 1:07 AM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 08/29/2018 05:15 PM, Bin Meng wrote: > >>>>>>> +Simon > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Marek, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 10:22 PM Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 08/24/2018 08:27 PM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The PCI controller can have DT subnodes describing extra properties > >>>>>>>>> of particular PCI devices, ie. a PHY attached to an EHCI controller > >>>>>>>>> on a PCI bus. This patch parses those DT subnodes and assigns a node > >>>>>>>>> to the PCI device instance, so that the driver can extract details > >>>>>>>>> from that node and ie. configure the PHY using the PHY subsystem. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>>>>>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, bump ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is the only missing patch to get my hardware working properly. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't think we ever had an agreement on the v1 patch. Simon had a > >>>>>>> long email that pointed out what Linux does seems like a 'fallback' to > >>>>>>> find a node with no compatible string. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Back to this, if we have to go with this way, please create a test > >>>>>>> case to cover this scenario. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The fact that it works on a particular board is not tested enough? > >>>>>> Do we need a custom, special, synthetic test ? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe that's always been the requirement against the DM code > >>>>> changes. I was requested in the past when I changed something in the > >>>>> DM and I see other people were asked to do so. Like Alex said, it does > >>>>> not mean this patch was not tested enough, but to ensure future > >>>>> commits won't break this. > >>>> > >>>> So, do you have any suggestion how to implement this test ? It seems > >>>> Alex posed the same question. It doesn't seem to be trivial in the > >>>> context of sandbox. > >>> > >>> I suppose you need a PCI_DEVICE() declaration for sandbox, with an > >>> associated DT node and no compatible string. Then check that you can > >>> locate the device and that it read a DT property correctly. > >> > >> Is there any example of this stuff already ? > > > > See the bottom of swap_case.c. You might be able to add a new one of those, > > > > If you look at pci-controller2 in test.dts it has a device with a > > compatible string. You could try adding a second device with no > > compatible string. > > And how does that test anything ?
You can test that your code actually attaches the DT node to the probed device. Without you code the test would fail. Wit it, it would pass. Regards, Simon _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
