On 09/20/2017 01:55 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
From: Vipul Kumar vipul.kumar@xilinx.com
This patch tests the gpio commands using the gpio data from boardenv file.
Also one test will show the default status of all the gpio's supported by the processor.
Nit: Wrap the commit description to something like 74 characters; the text above is far too narrow.
Nit: GPIO not gpio in any free-form text (here and in comments in the source file)
Ah, I'd briefly though about GPIO tests before, but was wondering how to integrate e.g. a USB GPIO device to the host PC and interface that with the target. Loopback GPIOs make this a lot easier:-)
diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_gpio.py b/test/py/tests/test_gpio.py
+""" +Note: This test relies on boardenv_* containing configuration values to define +which the gpio available for testing. Without this, this test will be automat-
Nit: Double space before automatically.
+For example:
+# A list of gpio's that are going to be tested in order to validate the +# test. +env__gpio_val = {
"gpio": [0,1,2],+}
Why is this a dictionary with only one key? Better to just assign the array directly to env__gpio_val, or put both the "gpio" and "list_of_gpios" into a single dictionary.
+# A list of gpio's that are shorted on the hardware board and first gpio of +# each group is configured as input and the other as output. If the pins are +# not shorted properly, then the test will be fail. +env__gpio_input_output = {
"list_of_gpios": [ [36, 37], [38, 39]],+}
Let's make the examples for env__gpio_val and env__gpio_input_output use the same GPIO numbers so that they match, and it's obvious how the two relate to each-other. I assume they're meant to?
Actually, why do we even need env__gpio_val if env__gpio_input_output already lists all the pairs of GPIOs?
Again, let's collapse this dict/list pair into just a list without the dict wrapper.
"gpio_val", "gpio", "gpio_input_output", and "list_of_gpios" aren't exactly great names. At least for "gpio_input_output"/"list_of_gpios", I'd suggest a more semantic name is "env__looped_back_gpios", which is a plain list (of pairs of GPIO numbers).
+def gpio_input(u_boot_console, gpio):
- u_boot_console.run_command("gpio input %d" %gpio)
Nit: Space after % operator (the second % outside the string). Same comment in many other cases.
- response = u_boot_console.run_command("gpio status -a %d" %gpio)
- expected_response = "%d: input:" %gpio
- assert(expected_response in response)
+def gpio_set(u_boot_console, gpio):
- expected_response = "%d: output: 1" %gpio
- u_boot_console.run_command("gpio set %d" %gpio)
- response = u_boot_console.run_command("gpio status -a %d" %gpio)
- assert(expected_response in response)
Why not make all these functions do things in the same order; gpio_input() above sets expected_response immediately before the assert (which I think is the right place to do it since it relates to the assert and not the gpio set/clear/toggle command which is executed earlier), whereas the other functions set expected_response at the start of the function.
+@pytest.mark.buildconfigspec("cmd_gpio") +def test_gpio_status(u_boot_console):
- response = u_boot_console.run_command("gpio status -a")
- expected_response = "0: input:"
- assert(expected_response in response)
This test assumes that GPIO 0 is expected to be configured as an input by default (at boot) on all HW that supports GPIOs. I don't think this is a valid assumption.
+@pytest.mark.buildconfigspec("cmd_gpio") +def test_gpio(u_boot_console):
- f = u_boot_console.config.env.get('env__gpio_val', None)
- if not f:
pytest.skip('No GPIO readable file to read')
What "file" is this referring to? A better message might be 'env__gpio_val not defined for this board'.
- gpin = f.get("gpio", None)
- for gpio in gpin:
gpio_input(u_boot_console, gpio)gpio_set(u_boot_console, gpio)gpio_clear(u_boot_console, gpio)gpio_toggle(u_boot_console, gpio)
So this is simply to test executing those commands? Why not rely on testing them as a side-effect of the loopback test below? the only one untested is toggle, and that could be added to the loopback test.
+@pytest.mark.buildconfigspec("cmd_gpio") +def test_gpio_input_output(u_boot_console):
- f = u_boot_console.config.env.get('env__gpio_input_output', None)
- if not f:
pytest.skip('No GPIO readable file to read')- list_of_gpios = f.get("list_of_gpios", None)
- flag = 0
- for list in list_of_gpios:
for i in list:if flag == 0:gpio_in = iexpected_response = "%d: input:" %gpio_inu_boot_console.run_command("gpio input %d" %gpio_in)response = u_boot_console.run_command("gpio status -a %d" %gpio_in)assert(expected_response in response)flag = 1else:gpio_out = iexpected_response = "%d: output:" %gpio_outu_boot_console.run_command("gpio set %d" %gpio_out)response = u_boot_console.run_command("gpio status -a %d" %gpio_out)assert(expected_response in response)flag = 0
This (the inner "for i in list") doesn't need to be a loop, since it's using flag to do completely different things on each iteration anyway, and that logic is pretty confusing. Instead, just do:
for list in list_of_gpios: gpio_in = list[0] configure input GPIO gpio_out = list[1] set gpio_out to 0 validate gpio_in value is 0 set gpio_out to 1 validate gpio_in value is 1
(and "list" isn't a great variable name especially since it aliases with a Python type constructor function; gpio_pair would be better)
... and actually it might be better to do something like the following:
for every GPIO pair: set gpio_in to input for every GPIO pair: set gpio_out to 0 for every GPIO pair: set gpio_out to 1 for every GPIO pair: if inner gpio_in == output gpio_in: expected_val = 1 else: expected_val = 0 validate inner gpio_in is expected_val set gpio_out to 0
... since that will both test that each gpio_out value affects the associated gpio_in value, but also that no gpio_out value affects any unexpected/unassociated gpio_in value.