Hello,
On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 07:04:25PM +0200, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2022 at 09:02:53AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Michal,
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 11:44, Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Michal,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 01:39, Michal Suchánek <msucha...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hello,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:15:12PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 10:48, Michal Suchánek <msucha...@suse.de>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2022 at 09:56:52AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, 30 Aug 2022 at 04:23, Michal Suchánek <msucha...@suse.de>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 07:52:27PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Michal,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 19 Aug 2022 at 14:23, Michal Suchanek
> > > > > > > > > <msucha...@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > When probing a device fails NULL pointer is returned, and
> > > > > > > > > > other devices
> > > > > > > > > > cannot be iterated. Skip to next device on error instead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Fixes: 6494d708bf ("dm: Add base driver model support")
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think you should drop this as you are doing a change of
> > > > > > > > > behaviour,
> > > > > > > > > not fixing a bug!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can hardly fix a bug without a change in behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These functions are used for iterating devices, and are not
> > > > > > > > iterating
> > > > > > > > devices. That's clearly a bug.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If it were clear I would have changed this long ago. The new way
> > > > > > > you
> > > > > > > have this function ignores errors, so they cannot be reported.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should almost always report errors, which is why I think your
> > > > > > > methods should be named differently.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msucha...@suse.de>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > v2: - Fix up tests
> > > > > > > > > > v3: - Fix up API doc
> > > > > > > > > > - Correctly forward error from uclass_get
> > > > > > > > > > - Do not return an error when last device fails to probe
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop redundant initialization
> > > > > > > > > > - Wrap at 80 columns
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > drivers/core/uclass.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > > > > > > > include/dm/uclass.h | 13 ++++++++-----
> > > > > > > > > > test/dm/test-fdt.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++----
> > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Unfortunately this still fails one test. Try 'make qcheck' to
> > > > > > > > > see it -
> > > > > > > > > it is ethernet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I will look at that.
How do you debug test failures?
There is indeed a test that regresses.
However, when I run
ping 1.1.1.1
I get to see the printfs that I added to net_loop
when I run
ut dm dm_test_eth_act
u-boot crashes, and no printf output is seen, not even the print that
should report entering net_loop.
Given that the assert that is reported as failing is
test/dm/eth.c:133, dm_test_eth_act(): -ENODEV == net_loop(PING): Expected
0xffffffed (-19), got 0x0 (0)
it should run the net_loop to get that error.
It's nice that we have tests but if they cannot be debugged they are not
all that useful.
Thanks
Michal
