On 21:46-20150901, Simon Glass wrote:
On 27 August 2015 at 22:07, Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com wrote:
Use the sandbox environment for the basic tests.
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon nm@ti.com
New patch.
test/dm/Makefile | 1 + test/dm/remoteproc.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 68 insertions(+) create mode 100644 test/dm/remoteproc.c
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Tested-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
Nit below.
Thanks. Will fix the same in the next rev.
[...]
/* dt device device 2 */ut_assertok(rproc_stop(0));ut_assertok(rproc_reset(0));/* -> invalid attempt tests.. */ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_start(0));ut_asserteq(-EINVAL, rproc_ping(0));/* Valid tests.. */You don't need a period at the end of these comments\
Yep. Will fix.
ut_assertok(rproc_load(2, 1, 0));ut_assertok(rproc_start(2));ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(2));ut_assertok(rproc_ping(2));ut_assertok(rproc_reset(2));ut_assertok(rproc_stop(2));Would it be worth having a test that goes through things in the wrong sequence? It's up to you.
The current tests does attempt to perform basic sanity tests - there are invalid sequence attempts as well.
BTW you don't have to put all your tests in one function, e.g. if some have a different purpose you can put them in a separate function.
I agree and had started it that way, then as I started putting things together, considering the tests were simple sequence based, they were good enough to put them in the test sequence in one shot. We can definitely evolve as folks find specific needs of improvement in the future.