[PATCH] test: Fix SPL tests not being run

[Simon Glass]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 16:24, Sean Anderson <sean.anderson at seco.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Thanks

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>