[U-Boot] [PATCH] RFC: checkpatch: Add a check for tests needed for uclasses

[Simon Glass]

Hi Heinrich,

On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 at 07:35, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.glpk at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> On 11/18/18 4:16 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > This is an experimental check for adding new uclasses without a test.
> >
> > I am not sure of the best way to add U-Boot-specific tests, although in
> > this case, it would not fire on Linux.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> >  scripts/checkpatch.pl | 7 +++++++
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > index 373094e59ef..2f9edb429d5 100755
> > --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
> > @@ -3033,6 +3033,13 @@ sub process {
> >                            "adding a line without newline at end of file\n" . $herecurr);
> >               }
> >
> > +             # ask for a test if a new uclass ID is added
> > +             if ($realfile =~ /uclass-id.h/ && $line =~ /^\+/) {
> > +                     WARN("NEW_UCLASS",
> > +                          "Possible new uclass - make sure to add a test in test/dm/<name>.c\n" . $herecurr);
> > +             }
> > +
> > +
> >  # check we are in a valid source file C or perl if not then ignore this hunk
> >               next if ($realfile !~ /\.(h|c|pl|dtsi|dts)$/);
> >
> >
>
> I would prefer if this script were a verbatim copy of the Linux
> upstream. Joe Perches is continually working on it. So let's update to
> 4.20 instead.

That's fine, but is not the point of this patch.

>
> Tests are needed for any new functionality. Nothing special about
> u-classes here. The reviewer/custodian should take care that this is
> observed.

We have similar checks for updating MAINTAINERS files when
adding/removing files. I think it is better for people to find out
that they need to add tests before they send their patches.

Also we have 73 uclasses but not all have tests, so some have clearly
slipped through the cracks.

Regards,
Simon