[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 4/4] test: Add basic tests for remoteproc

[Simon Glass]

On 27 August 2015 at 22:07, Nishanth Menon <nm at ti.com> wrote:
> Use the sandbox environment for the basic tests.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon <nm at 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 at chromium.org>
Tested-by: Simon Glass <sjg at 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