[PATCH 07/25] tegra: Change #ifdef for nop

[Simon Glass]

Hi Sean,

On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 17:21, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/7/23 19:10, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Tom.
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 18:43, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:39:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> >>
> >>> This code is normally compiled for Tegra, but sandbox can also compile
> >>> it. We should not use UNIT_TEST as a synonym for SANDBOX, since it is
> >>> possible to disable UNIT_TEST for sandbox.
> >>>
> >>> Correct the condition.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>>   include/k210/pll.h | 2 +-
> >>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/k210/pll.h b/include/k210/pll.h
> >>> index fd16a89cb203..6dd60b2eb4fc 100644
> >>> --- a/include/k210/pll.h
> >>> +++ b/include/k210/pll.h
> >>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ struct k210_pll_config {
> >>>        u8 od;
> >>>   };
> >>>
> >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_UNIT_TEST
> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX
> >>>   TEST_STATIC int k210_pll_calc_config(u32 rate, u32 rate_in,
> >>>                                     struct k210_pll_config *best);
> >>>   #ifndef nop
> >>
> >> Tegra? Do you mean sifive?  That's where CLK_K210 stuff is... but it
> >
> > Oh yes, I got confused.
> >
> >> also seems wrong, you can run unit test on real hardware, and this is a
> >> test that could (should?) be run on that platform.
> >
> > Only if it enables UNIT_TEST. You cannot run unit tests without that.
> > The current tests are designed for sandbox.
>
> FWIW I have run this test on actual hardware. My intent here was to allow
> unit tests to access functions which would otherwise be declared static.

Er, with or without UNIT_TEST enabled? How can it even build if this
declaration is only for sandbox?

Regards,
Simon