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

[Sean Anderson]

On 10/10/23 10:42, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 17:40, Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/9/23 11:32, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> With UNIT_TEST of course. Although since this is a forward-declaration, the
>> UNIT_TEST ifdef isn't really even necessary. If it's on actual hardware, nop
>> should already be defined. So maybe this should be something like
>>
>> #if CONFIG_SANDBOX
>> #define nop()
>> #endif
> 
> It is the CONFIG_SANDBOX that I am trying to remove. Can it be
> CONFIG_UNIT_TEST instead?

Well, you can just remove the `ifdef UNIT_TEST` then.

--Sean