Re: [PATCH/RFC] clk: gate: Add some kunit test suites

From: Vaittinen, Matti
Date: Tue Apr 14 2020 - 07:46:39 EST

Next message: David Hildenbrand: "Re: [PATCH] mm/ksm: Fix kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040"
Previous message: Anshuman Khandual: "[PATCH 3/3] mm/hugetlb: Introduce HAVE_ARCH_CLEAR_HUGEPAGE_FLAGS"
In reply to: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH/RFC] clk: gate: Add some kunit test suites"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hello Stephen & All,

Prologue:

I have been traumatized in the past - by unit tests :) Thus I am always
a bit jumpy when I see people adding UTs. I always see the inertia UTs
add to development - when people change anything they must also change
impacted UTs - and every unnecessary UT case is actually burden. I was
once buried under such burden.. Back at those times I quite often found
myself wondering why I spend two days fixing UT cases after I did a
necessary code change which took maybe 10 minutes. Please see my
comments knowing this history and do your decisions based on less
biased - brighter understanding :]

On Tue, 2020-04-07 at 20:56 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Test various parts of the clk gate implementation with the kunit
> testing
> framework.
>
> Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> This patch is on top of this series[1] that allows the clk
> framework to be selected by Kconfig language.
>
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200405025123.154688-1-sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx
>
> drivers/clk/Kconfig | 8 +
> drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c | 481
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 490 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> index 6ea0631e3956..66193673bcdf 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> @@ -377,4 +377,12 @@ source "drivers/clk/ti/Kconfig"
> source "drivers/clk/uniphier/Kconfig"
> source "drivers/clk/zynqmp/Kconfig"
>
> +# Kunit test cases
> +config CLK_GATE_TEST
> + tristate "Basic gate type Kunit test"
> + depends on KUNIT
> + default KUNIT
> + help
> + Kunit test for the basic clk gate type.
> +
> endif
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> index f4169cc2fd31..0785092880fd 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-divider.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-fixed-factor.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-fixed-rate.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-gate.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_CLK_GATE_TEST) += clk-gate-test.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-multiplier.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-mux.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK) += clk-composite.o
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c b/drivers/clk/clk-gate-
> test.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b1d6c21e9698
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-gate-test.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,481 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +/*
> + * KUnit test for clk gate basic type
> + */
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +
> +#include <kunit/test.h>
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_dev(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> +
> + pdev = platform_device_register_simple("test_gate_device", -1,
> NULL, 0);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, pdev);
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate(&pdev->dev, "test_gate", NULL, 0,
> NULL,
> + 0, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "test_gate", clk_hw_get_name(ret));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0UL, clk_hw_get_flags(ret));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> + platform_device_put(pdev);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_names(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 1000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", "test_parent", 0,
> NULL,
> + 0, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> + clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_data(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> + struct clk_parent_data pdata = { };
> +
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 1000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> + pdata.hw = parent;
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(NULL, "test_gate",
> &pdata, 0,
> + NULL, 0, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> + clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_data_legacy(struct kunit
> *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> + struct clk_parent_data pdata = { };
> +
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 1000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> + pdata.name = "test_parent";
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(NULL, "test_gate",
> &pdata, 0,
> + NULL, 0, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> + clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_parent_hw(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 1000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0, NULL,
> + 0, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ret);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, parent, clk_hw_get_parent(ret));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ret);
> + clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(parent);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_register_test_hiword_invalid(struct kunit
> *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *ret;
> +
> + ret = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, NULL,
> + 20, CLK_GATE_HIWORD_MASK, NULL);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, IS_ERR(ret));
> +}

Do we really need all these registration tests? I guess most of the
code path would be tested by just one of these - how much value we add
by adding rest of the registration cases? (just wondering)

> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_register_test_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_dev),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_names),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_data),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_data_legacy),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_parent_hw),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_register_test_hiword_invalid),
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_register_test_suite = {
> + .name = "clk-gate-register-test",
> + .test_cases = clk_gate_register_test_cases,
> +};
> +
> +struct clk_gate_test_context {
> + void __iomem *fake_mem;
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + u32 fake_reg; /* Keep at end, KASAN can detect out of bounds */
> +};
> +
> +static struct clk_gate_test_context *clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(struct
> kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + test->priv = ctx = kzalloc(sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx);
> + ctx->fake_mem = (void __force __iomem *)&ctx->fake_reg;
> +
> + return ctx;
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_parent_rate(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + unsigned long prate = clk_hw_get_rate(parent);
> + unsigned long rate = clk_hw_get_rate(hw);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, prate, rate);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = BIT(5);
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}

Is this really necessary? Wouldn't most of this be tested by
clk_gate_test_disable()?

> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = BIT(5);
> + u32 disable_val = 0;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_parent_rate),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_enable),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_disable),
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 2000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> + ctx->fake_mem, 5, 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> + ctx->hw = hw;
> + ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(ctx->hw);
> + clk_hw_unregister_fixed_rate(ctx->parent);
> + kfree(ctx);
> +}

Aren't these init and exit actually covering some of the things tested
in clk_gate_register_test_cases? Perhaps we could reduce some tests or
use some test functions as init/exit?

> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_suite = {
> + .name = "clk-gate-test",
> + .init = clk_gate_test_init,
> + .exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> + .test_cases = clk_gate_test_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_invert_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = 0;
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}

Is this really adding value after clk_gate_test_invert_disable() has
passed?

+
> +static void clk_gate_test_invert_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = 0;
> + u32 disable_val = BIT(15);
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_invert_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_invert_enable),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_invert_disable),
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_invert_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 2000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> + ctx->fake_reg = BIT(15); /* Default to off */
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> + ctx->fake_mem, 15,
> + CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE,
> NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> + ctx->hw = hw;
> + ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}

Aren't these init and exit actually covering some of the things tested
in clk_gate_register_test_cases? Perhaps we could reduce some tests or
use some test functions as init/exit?

I stopped reviewing here - I think you know what I was up-to and you
are the best experts to evaluate whether there is something to
squash/drop also in the rest of the tests :)

Epilogue:

In general, I would be very careful when adding UT-code and I would try
to minimize the required test changes when for example one of the clk
APIs require a change. (I know, the test changes are least thing to
worry if these APIs need change - but effort is still cumulative and if
we can avoid some - we should).

I don't mean to be disrespectful. I know my place in the food-chain :p
Besides, I have seen the great work Stephen has been doing with clk -
and I believe he knows what he is doing. But sometimes little poking
can invoke new thoughts :grin: You can ignore my comments if they make
no sense to you.

Best Regards
--Matti
>

> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_invert_suite = {
> + .name = "clk-gate-invert-test",
> + .init = clk_gate_test_invert_init,
> + .exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> + .test_cases = clk_gate_test_invert_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_hiword_enable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = BIT(9) | BIT(9 + 16);
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> +
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_hiword_disable(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx = test->priv;
> + struct clk_hw *parent = ctx->parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw = ctx->hw;
> + struct clk *clk = hw->clk;
> + int ret;
> + u32 enable_val = BIT(9) | BIT(9 + 16);
> + u32 disable_val = BIT(9 + 16);
> +
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, enable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(clk);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, disable_val, ctx->fake_reg);
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(hw));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(parent));
> + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_prepared(parent));
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_hiword_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_hiword_enable),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_hiword_disable),
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static int clk_gate_test_hiword_init(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *parent;
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + parent = clk_hw_register_fixed_rate(NULL, "test_parent", NULL,
> 0,
> + 2000000);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, parent);
> +
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate_parent_hw(NULL, "test_gate", parent,
> 0,
> + ctx->fake_mem, 9,
> + CLK_GATE_HIWORD_MASK,
> NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> +
> + ctx->hw = hw;
> + ctx->parent = parent;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_hiword_suite = {
> + .name = "clk-gate-hiword-test",
> + .init = clk_gate_test_hiword_init,
> + .exit = clk_gate_test_exit,
> + .test_cases = clk_gate_test_hiword_cases,
> +};
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_enabled(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + ctx->fake_reg = BIT(7);
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 7,
> + 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> + kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_disabled(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + ctx->fake_reg = BIT(4);
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 7,
> + 0, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> + kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_enabled_inverted(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + ctx->fake_reg = BIT(31);
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 2,
> + CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> + kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static void clk_gate_test_is_disabled_inverted(struct kunit *test)
> +{
> + struct clk_hw *hw;
> + struct clk_gate_test_context *ctx;
> +
> + ctx = clk_gate_test_alloc_ctx(test);
> + ctx->fake_reg = BIT(29);
> + hw = clk_hw_register_gate(NULL, "test_gate", NULL, 0, ctx-
> >fake_mem, 29,
> + CLK_GATE_SET_TO_DISABLE, NULL);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, hw);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_FALSE(test, clk_hw_is_enabled(hw));
> +
> + clk_hw_unregister_gate(hw);
> + kfree(ctx);
> +}
> +
> +static struct kunit_case clk_gate_test_enabled_cases[] = {
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_enabled),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_disabled),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_enabled_inverted),
> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_gate_test_is_disabled_inverted),
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static struct kunit_suite clk_gate_test_enabled_suite = {
> + .name = "clk-gate-is_enabled-test",
> + .test_cases = clk_gate_test_enabled_cases,
> +};
> +
> +kunit_test_suites(
> + &clk_gate_register_test_suite,
> + &clk_gate_test_suite,
> + &clk_gate_test_invert_suite,
> + &clk_gate_test_hiword_suite,
> + &clk_gate_test_enabled_suite
> +);
> +MODULE_LICENSE("GPL v2");
>
> base-commit: 7111951b8d4973bda27ff663f2cf18b663d15b48
> prerequisite-patch-id: e066e74d3e3848a69239083647017b9e4b2a7b87
> prerequisite-patch-id: ab1cc18da4a59b8973b4c8d85b6ea90eb6200df0
> prerequisite-patch-id: 5608c2059c4ad2d76aae62cd9897862a1f447cfb
> prerequisite-patch-id: 3a2300fc681af075232bfe62dbd1eb81290ca5a1
> prerequisite-patch-id: 6268382cce3446e3eb3cec7fec86973ab3dc9e7c
> prerequisite-patch-id: 57b540a6a65ffb9cc53bb4b9c3fd8c4f55a4ce05
> prerequisite-patch-id: 2ec56bc3f971534850ebe7253d5ae023dfc87410
> prerequisite-patch-id: 9500860f59b801c734ab22f18737ca0ceff8208c
> prerequisite-patch-id: 09a4d90ae718ab61fc9423862b1c2044ea898e3e
> --
> Sent by a computer, using git, on the internet
>

Next message: David Hildenbrand: "Re: [PATCH] mm/ksm: Fix kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000040"
Previous message: Anshuman Khandual: "[PATCH 3/3] mm/hugetlb: Introduce HAVE_ARCH_CLEAR_HUGEPAGE_FLAGS"
In reply to: Stephen Boyd: "Re: [PATCH/RFC] clk: gate: Add some kunit test suites"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]