On 10/10/23 10:42, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Sean,
On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 17:40, Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/9/23 11:32, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Sean,
On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 17:21, Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/23 19:10, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom.
On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 18:43, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:39:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> This code is normally compiled for Tegra, but sandbox can also compile > it. We should not use UNIT_TEST as a synonym for SANDBOX, since it is > possible to disable UNIT_TEST for sandbox. > > Correct the condition. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org > --- > > include/k210/pll.h | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/include/k210/pll.h b/include/k210/pll.h > index fd16a89cb203..6dd60b2eb4fc 100644 > --- a/include/k210/pll.h > +++ b/include/k210/pll.h > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ struct k210_pll_config { > u8 od; > }; > > -#ifdef CONFIG_UNIT_TEST > +#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX > TEST_STATIC int k210_pll_calc_config(u32 rate, u32 rate_in, > struct k210_pll_config *best); > #ifndef nop
Tegra? Do you mean sifive? That's where CLK_K210 stuff is... but it
Oh yes, I got confused.
also seems wrong, you can run unit test on real hardware, and this is a test that could (should?) be run on that platform.
Only if it enables UNIT_TEST. You cannot run unit tests without that. The current tests are designed for sandbox.
FWIW I have run this test on actual hardware. My intent here was to allow unit tests to access functions which would otherwise be declared static.
Er, with or without UNIT_TEST enabled? How can it even build if this declaration is only for sandbox?
With UNIT_TEST of course. Although since this is a forward-declaration, the UNIT_TEST ifdef isn't really even necessary. If it's on actual hardware, nop should already be defined. So maybe this should be something like
#if CONFIG_SANDBOX #define nop() #endif
It is the CONFIG_SANDBOX that I am trying to remove. Can it be CONFIG_UNIT_TEST instead?
Well, you can just remove the `ifdef UNIT_TEST` then.
--Sean