On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 19:28 -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 10:23, Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzjulie...@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > By reusing DT nodes already available in sandbox's test DT introduce a
> > test to validate dev_phys_to_bus()/dev_bus_to_phys().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulie...@suse.de>
> > ---
> > test/dm/Makefile | 1 +
> > test/dm/phys2bus.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
> > create mode 100644 test/dm/phys2bus.c
>
> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>
> comment below
>
> >
> > diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile
> > index 5c52d8b6ea..ac86abaa88 100644
> > --- a/test/dm/Makefile
> > +++ b/test/dm/Makefile
> > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_UT_DM) += test-uclass.o
> >
> > obj-$(CONFIG_UT_DM) += core.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_UT_DM) += read.o
> > +obj-$(CONFIG_UT_DM) += phys2bus.o
> > ifneq ($(CONFIG_SANDBOX),)
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ACPIGEN) += acpi.o
> > obj-$(CONFIG_ACPIGEN) += acpigen.o
> > diff --git a/test/dm/phys2bus.c b/test/dm/phys2bus.c
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..06a045c168
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/test/dm/phys2bus.c
> > @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > +/*
> > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulie...@suse.de>
> > + */
> > +
> > +#include <common.h>
> > +#include <dm.h>
> > +#include <phys2bus.h>
> > +#include <dm/device.h>
> > +#include <dm/ofnode.h>
> > +#include <dm/root.h>
> > +#include <dm/test.h>
> > +#include <dm/uclass-internal.h>
> > +#include <test/ut.h>
> > +
> > +static int dm_test_phys_to_bus(struct unit_test_state *uts)
> > +{
> > + struct udevice *dev;
> > + ofnode node;
> > +
> > + node = ofnode_path("/mmio-bus@0");
> > + ut_assert(ofnode_valid(node));
> > + ut_assert(!uclass_get_device_by_ofnode(UCLASS_TEST_BUS, node,
> > &dev));
> > + /* In this case it should be transparent, no dma-ranges in parent
> > bus */
> > + ut_asserteq_ptr((void*)0xfffffULL, (void*)dev_phys_to_bus(dev,
> > 0xfffff));
>
> ut_asserteq_addr() might be better here? Not sure.That function uses map_to_sysmem() under the hood, which AFAIR didn't play well with these addresses. Regards, Nicolas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
