Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Mar 2023 12:05:14 +0200 | From | Matti Vaittinen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] drivers: kunit: Generic helpers for test device creation |
| |
On 3/24/23 11:52, David Gow wrote: > On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:51, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 3/24/23 08:34, David Gow wrote: >>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 at 14:11, Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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. >> > > Great idea. > > The code I've been playing with has the following in include/kunit/device.h: > > /* Register a new device against a KUnit test. */ > struct device *kunit_device_register(struct kunit *test, const char *name); > /* Unregister a device created by kunit_device_register() early (i.e., > before test cleanup). */ > void kunit_device_unregister(struct kunit *test, struct device *dev); > > If we used the same names, and just forwarded them to > root_device_register() and root_device_unregister() for now > (discarding the struct kunit pointer), then I expect we could just > swap out the implementation to gain the extra functionality. > > It's a little less explicit, though, so I could see the value in using > macros with "root_device" in the name to make the current > implementation clearer, and the eventual change more obvious.
I think it makes sense to avoid the mass-conversions if the signatures for kunit_device_register() and kunit_device_unregister() are expected to be known by now. If there is no objections I'll add those wrappers + the include/kunit/device.h to v6 of this series.
I think I'll try to hold back sending the v6 until next Monday - unless I get really bored during the weekend ;)
Yours, -- Matti
-- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland
~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
| |