Hi Masahiro,
On 22 April 2018 at 22:56, Masahiro Yamada yamada.masahiro@socionext.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
2018-04-23 5:10 GMT+09:00 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Masahiro,
On 17 April 2018 at 20:38, Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
wrote:
Currently, regmap_init_mem() takes udevice. This requires the node has already been associated with a device. It prevents syscon/regmap from behaving like those in Linux.
Change the first argumenet to take the device node.
Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada yamada.masahiro@socionext.com
arch/arm/mach-aspeed/ast2500/sdram_ast2500.c | 2 +- drivers/core/regmap.c | 11 +++++------ drivers/core/syscon-uclass.c | 2 +- drivers/phy/meson-gxl-usb2.c | 2 +- drivers/phy/meson-gxl-usb3.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/dmc-rk3368.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3188.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk322x.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3288.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/rockchip/sdram_rk3399.c | 2 +- drivers/ram/stm32mp1/stm32mp1_ram.c | 2 +- drivers/reset/reset-meson.c | 2 +- include/regmap.h | 4 ++-- 13 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
Can you please add a simple test for regmap on sandbox?
No.
Please stop this boiler-plate response.
Simple tests for regmap already exist in test/dm/regmap.c
regmap_init_mem() is not a new function, and it is tested through other function tests.
Can you please point to that? I don't see anything for sandbox.
You block patches several times before by making the contributors say "Sorry, I am busy".
I am really busy, but I need to fix the misimplementation of syscon for Socionext drivers.
Why should I be annoyed by additional work to fix the problem?
Because otherwise I have no idea if the code works, no one will be able to change it later without potentially breaking it, etc. If people get into the habit of writing a little test at the same time, it takes very little extra effort.
I have pour an ENORMOUS amount of time into making testing in U-Boot better, as has Stephen Warren. We need to continue the effort. I'm sorry that this adds a little more time to the patch submission process, but we gain a lot of benefits. Look at all the times we have tried to fix address translation in U-Boot, or FIT behaviour, when we don't have tests or even a clear definition of the correct behaviour.
So please try to understand my point of view here. This is not just about your patch, it is about the future of U-Boot for future users and contributors.
Regards, Simon