Re: [PATCH V6 5/6] of: unittest: Create overlay_common.dtsi and testcases_common.dtsi

[Frank Rowand]

On 1/22/21 9:07 PM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 04:20:35PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> In order to build-test the same unit-test files using fdtoverlay tool,
>> move the device nodes from the existing overlay_base.dts and
>> testcases_common.dts files to .dtsi files. The .dts files now include
>> the new .dtsi files, resulting in exactly the same behavior as earlier.
>>
>> The .dtsi files can now be reused for compile time tests using
>> fdtoverlay (will be done in a later patch).
>>
>> This is required because the base files passed to fdtoverlay tool
>> shouldn't be overlays themselves (i.e. shouldn't have the /plugin/;
>> tag).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts     | 90 +-----------------
>>  drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_common.dtsi  | 91 +++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/of/unittest-data/testcases.dts        | 17 +---
>>  .../of/unittest-data/testcases_common.dtsi    | 18 ++++
>>  4 files changed, 111 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_common.dtsi
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/of/unittest-data/testcases_common.dtsi
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts b/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts
>> index 99ab9d12d00b..ab9014589c5d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts
>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest-data/overlay_base.dts
>> @@ -2,92 +2,4 @@
>>  /dts-v1/;
>>  /plugin/;
> 
> This still makes no sense to me.  Is this data intended as a base
> tree, or as an overlay?  If it's an overlay, what are the constraints
> on the base tree it's supposed to apply to.

I have already replied several times that this should not make sense to
anyone unless they read unittest.c and see in detail how these FDTs are
abused.  I have stated several times that the usage is bizarre and not
normal.

> 
> This patch is treating it as both in different places, but that's such
> a bizarre usecase it needs detailed justification.  It really looks
> like the unittest stuff is doing some very bogus stuff that should be
> fixed first, before trying to do this on top.
> 

The unittest stuff is bizarre, but it is correct.  This patch series does
not alter the current usage.

-Frank