[PATCH v2 02/10] test: pinmux: Add test for pin muxing

[Sean Anderson]

On 6/16/20 11:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:27, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This extends the pinctrl-sandbox driver to support pin muxing, and adds a
>> test for that behaviour. The test is done in C and not python (like the
>> existing tests for the pinctrl uclass) because it needs to call
>> pinctrl_select_state.  Another option could be to add a command that
>> invokes pinctrl_select_state and then test everything in
>> test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py.
>>
>> The pinctrl-sandbox driver now mimics the way that many pinmux devices
>> work.  There are two groups of pins which are muxed together, as well as
>> four pins which are muxed individually. I have tried to test all normal
>> paths. However, very few error cases are explicitly checked for.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - New
>>
>>  arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts         |  45 +++++++--
>>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-sandbox.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  test/dm/Makefile                  |   3 +
>>  test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py      |  36 +++----
>>  4 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
>>
> 
> [..]
> 
> 
>> diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile
>> index 0d1c66fa1e..9e273ee02d 100644
>> --- a/test/dm/Makefile
>> +++ b/test/dm/Makefile
>> @@ -76,4 +76,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DM_RNG) += rng.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_CLK_K210_SET_RATE) += k210_pll.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_SIMPLE_PM_BUS) += simple-pm-bus.o
>>  obj-$(CONFIG_RESET_SYSCON) += syscon-reset.o
>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_PINMUX),)
>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCONF) += pinmux.o
> 
> I don't see this file in your patch.

Whoops, will add it next revision.

> 
>> +endif
>>  endif
>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py b/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>> index 4e6df992a4..0cbbae000c 100644
>> --- a/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>> +++ b/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>> @@ -28,15 +28,15 @@ def test_pinmux_status_all(u_boot_console):
> 
> Feel free to convert this to C also if you like. It is faster,
> although perhaps not much faster since it only runs a few commands?

Ok, I can have a look.

Should C be preferred for new tests?

--Sean