Re: [PATCH 1/8] dt-bindings: Add linux,kunit binding

[David Gow]

On Fri, 10 Mar 2023 at 07:12, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting David Gow (2023-03-02 23:14:55)
> > On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 09:38, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Document the linux,kunit board compatible string. This board is loaded
> > > into the Linux kernel when KUnit is testing devicetree dependent code.
> >
> > As with the series as a whole, this might need to change a little bit
> > if we want to either use devicetree overlays and/or other
> > architectures.
> >
> > That being said, I'm okay with having this until then: the only real
> > topic for bikeshedding is the name.
> > - Is KUnit best as a board name, or part of the vendor name?
> > - Do we want to include the architecture in the name?
> > Should it be "linux,kunit", "linux-kunit,uml", "linux,kunit-uml", etc?
>
> I think I will drop this patch. I have overlays working. I hijacked
> of_core_init() to load the testcase data from drivers/of/unittest-data
> and made a container node for kunit overlays to apply to.

Makes sense to me, thanks!

Looking forward to seeing how the overlays work in practice!