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.
diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile index eda964318593..7b3626cb3294 100644 --- a/test/dm/Makefile +++ b/test/dm/Makefile @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DM_MMC) += mmc.o obj-$(CONFIG_DM_PCI) += pci.o obj-$(CONFIG_RAM) += ram.o obj-y += regmap.o +obj-$(CONFIG_REMOTEPROC) += remoteproc.o obj-$(CONFIG_RESET) += reset.o obj-$(CONFIG_DM_RTC) += rtc.o obj-$(CONFIG_DM_SPI_FLASH) += sf.o diff --git a/test/dm/remoteproc.c b/test/dm/remoteproc.c new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..924eae854078 --- /dev/null +++ b/test/dm/remoteproc.c @@ -0,0 +1,67 @@ +/*
- (C) Copyright 2015
- Texas Instruments Incorporated - http://www.ti.com/
- SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
- */
+#include <common.h> +#include <dm.h> +#include <errno.h> +#include <remoteproc.h> +#include <dm/test.h> +#include <test/ut.h> +/**
- dm_test_remoteproc_base() - test the operations after initializations
- @uts: unit test state
- Return: 0 if test passed, else error
- */
+static int dm_test_remoteproc_base(struct unit_test_state *uts) +{
if (!rproc_is_initialized())ut_assertok(rproc_init());/* Ensure we are initialized */ut_asserteq(true, rproc_is_initialized());/* platform data device 1 */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.. */ut_assertok(rproc_load(0, 1, 0));ut_assertok(rproc_start(0));ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(0));ut_assertok(rproc_ping(0));ut_assertok(rproc_reset(0));ut_assertok(rproc_stop(0));/* dt device device 1 */ut_assertok(rproc_stop(1));ut_assertok(rproc_reset(1));ut_assertok(rproc_load(1, 1, 0));ut_assertok(rproc_start(1));ut_assertok(rproc_is_running(1));ut_assertok(rproc_ping(1));ut_assertok(rproc_reset(1));ut_assertok(rproc_stop(1));/* 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\
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.
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.
return 0;+}
+DM_TEST(dm_test_remoteproc_base, DM_TESTF_SCAN_PDATA | DM_TESTF_SCAN_FDT);
2.1.4
Regards, Simon