[PATCH] test: Fix SPL tests not being run

[Sean Anderson]

On 10/2/23 14:56, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2023 at 08:38, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson at seco.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/1/23 15:36, Simon Glass wrote:
>> > Hi Sean,
>> >
>> > On Fri, 29 Sept 2023 at 10:12, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson at seco.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 9/29/23 12:06, Sean Anderson wrote:
>> >> > SPL doesn't have OF_LIVE enabled, so we can only run tests with a flat
>> >> > tree. Don't skip them even if they don't use the devicetree.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fixes: 6ec5178c0ef ("test: Skip flat-tree tests if devicetree is not used")
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean.anderson at seco.com>
>> >> > ---
>> >> >
>> >> >  test/test-main.c | 3 ++-
>> >> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/test/test-main.c b/test/test-main.c
>> >> > index 778bf0a18a0..edb20bc4b9c 100644
>> >> > --- a/test/test-main.c
>> >> > +++ b/test/test-main.c
>> >> > @@ -476,7 +476,8 @@ static int ut_run_test_live_flat(struct unit_test_state *uts,
>> >> >        *   (for sandbox we handle this by copying the tree, but not for other
>> >> >        *    boards)
>> >> >        */
>> >> > -     if ((test->flags & UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT) &&
>> >> > +     if ((!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_LIVE) ||
>> >> > +          (test->flags & UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT)) &&
>> >> >           !(test->flags & UT_TESTF_LIVE_TREE) &&
>> >> >           (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OFNODE_MULTI_TREE) ||
>> >> >            !(test->flags & UT_TESTF_OTHER_FDT)) &&
>> >>
>> >> Upon further review, do we even need 6ec5178c0ef in the first place?
>> >> ut_test_run_on_flattree looks like it's trying to do the same thing.
>> >
>> > Well one problem is that many tests are not run at all unless OF_LIVE
>> > is enabled. The code as is is assuming that OF_LIVE is active.
>> >
>> > On boards where OF_LIVE is not active, many tests won't run at all
>> > unless they are marked with UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT.
>> >
>> > So I think that UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT line needs to be removed.
>>
>> OK, so to clarify, since 6ec5178c0ef added that UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT, you would like to
>> revert that commit?
> 
> Yes, I think that will work...but just check that tests without the
> UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT flag don't then run twice with sandbox. There was
> perhaps something else wrong at the time.

Actually, upon further review, I think that the above patch is correct. A revert would
cause tests with UT_TESTF_DM but without UT_TESTF_SCAN_FDT to run twice.

--Sean