Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device creation

[Matti Vaittinen]

On 3/24/23 08:34, David Gow wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:11, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 3/23/23 18:36, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 03:02:03PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > > > On 3/23/23 14:29, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 02:16:52PM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:

> > Ok. Fair enough. Besides, if the root-device was sufficient - then I
> > would actually not see the need for a helper. People could in that case
> > directly use the root_device_register(). So, if helpers are provided
> > they should be backed up by a device with a bus then.
>
> I think there is _some_ value in helpers even without a bus, but it's
> much more limited:
> - It's less confusing if KUnit test devices are using kunit labelled
> structs and functions.
> - Helpers could use KUnit's resource management API to ensure any
> device created is properly unregistered and removed when the test
> exits (particularly if it exits early due to, e.g., an assertion).

Ah. That's true. Being able to abort the test on error w/o being forced 
to do a clean-up dance for the dummy device would be convenient.

> I've played around implementing those with a proper struct
> kunit_device and the automatic cleanup on test failure, and thus far
> it -- like root_device_register -- works for all of the tests except
> the drm-test-managed one.
>
> So if we really wanted to, we could use KUnit-specific helpers for
> just those tests which currently work with root_device_register(), but
> if we're going to try to implement a KUnit bus -- which I think is at
> least worth investigating -- I'd rather not either hold up otherwise
> good tests on helper development, or rush a helper out only to have to
> change it a lot when we see exactly what the bus implementation would
> look like.

It's easy for me to agree.

> > As I said, in my very specific IIO related test the test device does not
> > need a bus. Hence I'll drop the 'generic helpers' from this series.
>
> I think that sounds like a good strategy for now, and we can work on a
> set of 'generic helpers' which have an associated bus and struct
> kunit_device in the meantime. If we can continue to use
> root_device_register until those are ready, that'd be very convenient.

Would it be a tiny bit more acceptable if we did add a very simple:

#define kunit_root_device_register(name) root_device_register(name)
#define kunit_root_device_unregister(dev) root_device_unregister(dev)

to include/kunit/device.h (or somesuch)

This should help us later to at least spot the places where 
root_device_[un]register() is abused and (potentially mass-)covert them 
to use the proper helpers when they're available.

Yours,
	-- Matti


--
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~