AMD General Hi Simon,
Yes, this is covered by a follow-up series I've already posted: test: dm: add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=516335 It depends on patches 3 and 4 of this series (the test fails outright without them), so I sent it separately rather than folding it into v2. Thanks, Pranav Sanwal > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2026 11:29 PM > To: Sanwal, Pranav <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [v2,0/5] gpio: improve claim diagnostics and fix gpio-delay > offset > handling > > Hi Pranav, > > On 2026-07-29T08:12:14, Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Changes in v2: > > Could you also add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay ? You shoud add a gpio- > delay node to the sandbox test devicetree wrapping at least two real lines, > plus > a test in test/dm/gpio.c that requests both consumers and toggles them? That > would cover the offset-propagation fix in patch 4, the gpio_count/bounds fix > in patch 3, and - via dm_leak_check - the remove-path fix in patch 5, all of > which are otherwise not covered by tests and might break at any time. > > Regards, > Simon
