Re: [PATCH 2/2] of: unittest: treat missing of_root as error instead of fixing up

[Rob Herring]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:27PM -0500, frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
> 
>  setup_of() now ensures that of_root node is populated with the
>  root of a default devicetree. Remove the unittest code that
>  created of_root if it was missing.  Verify that of_root is
>  valid before attempting to attach the testcase-data subtree.

What happened with the formatting here?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/of/unittest.c | 16 ++++++----------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> index 7f6bba18c515..9d106998c1f2 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> @@ -1469,20 +1469,16 @@ static int __init unittest_data_add(void)
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!of_root) {
> -		of_root = unittest_data_node;
> -		for_each_of_allnodes(np)
> -			__of_attach_node_sysfs(np);
> -		of_aliases = of_find_node_by_path("/aliases");
> -		of_chosen = of_find_node_by_path("/chosen");
> -		of_overlay_mutex_unlock();
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> -
>  	EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_INFO,
>  		     "Duplicate name in testcase-data, renamed to \"duplicate-name#1\"");
>  
>  	/* attach the sub-tree to live tree */
> +	if (!of_root) {
> +		pr_warn("%s: no live tree to attach sub-tree\n", __func__);
> +		kfree(unittest_data);
> +		return -ENODEV;
> +	}
> +
>  	np = unittest_data_node->child;
>  	while (np) {
>  		struct device_node *next = np->sibling;
> -- 
> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx>
> 
>