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

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sean,

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 at 02:01, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/20 10:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 21:18, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > +Stephen Warren
> >
> > For sandbox tests, yes. If there is a lot of interaction, Python is
> > extremely slow.
> >
> > But with Python we can run a test on real hardware without compiling
> > the test into U-Boot. So there are benefits on both sides.
>
> Ok, I looked into it, and the python test uses the
>     assert 'somestring' in output
> idiom a lot. From what I can tell, there's not an easy way to replicate
> this behavior on the C side of things. Adding a function to do this
> would probably call for its own patch. I could also use the existing
> functionality to test for lines, but I think that would be much more
> brittle when compared to the python version.

Well you could add assert_nextline_contains() for example?

Regards,
Simon