Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] clk: tests: Add missing test cases for mux determine_rate
From: Yang Xiwen
Date: Wed May 03 2023 - 14:46:58 EST
On 5/3/2023 11:08 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Yang Xiwen via B4 Relay (2023-04-26 12:34:17)
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> index f9a5c2964c65d..4f7f9a964637a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
>> @@ -2194,7 +2194,47 @@ static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_exit(struct kunit *test)
>> * parent, the rate request structure returned by __clk_determine_rate
>> * is sane and will be what we expect.
>> */
>> -static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate(struct kunit *test)
>
> Just leave this one alone and put the other test cases right after it.
> Don't rename it and also move it lower down. It makes the diff hard to
> read.
I don't quite understand. In this patch, I renamed it to case3. Here I
think you'd like it to remain as-is. But I think the comments below said
I should rename it to clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_exactly_parent1()?
Actually what this test has done should be included in this series of
test cases as one of them.
>
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case1(struct kunit *test)
>
> Please add a comment above each test case like there is for
> clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate() that describes what is
> being tested.
>
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, 0);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case2(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, DUMMY_CLOCK_INIT_RATE);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, -EINVAL);
>
> There should be some KUNIT_EXPECT statement in each test.
>
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case3(struct kunit *test)
>> {
>> struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> @@ -2218,8 +2258,95 @@ static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate(struct kunit *test)
>> clk_put(clk);
>> }
>>
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case4(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, (DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1 + DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2) / 2);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case5(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2 + 100000);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case6(struct kunit *test)
>> +{
>> + struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx = test->priv;
>> + struct clk_hw *hw = &ctx->hw;
>> + struct clk *clk = clk_hw_get_clk(hw, NULL);
>> + struct clk_rate_request req;
>> + unsigned long rate;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + rate = clk_get_rate(clk);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1);
>> +
>> + clk_hw_init_rate_request(hw, &req, ULONG_MAX);
>> +
>> + ret = __clk_determine_rate(hw, &req);
>> + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, ret, 0);
>> +
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, req.best_parent_rate, DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2);
>> + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, req.best_parent_hw, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
>> +
>> + clk_put(clk);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* We test 6 cases here:
>> + * 1. The requested rate is 0;
>> + * 2. The requested rate is not 0 but lower than any rate that parents could offer;
>> + * 3. The requested rate is exactly one of the parents' clock rate;
>> + * 4. The requested rate is between the lowest clock rate and the highest clock rate that the parents could offer;
>> + * 5. The requested rate is larger than all rates that parents could offer;
>> + * 6. The requested rate is ULONG_MAX.
>> + *
>> + * Hopefully they covered all cases.
>> + */
>
> Please remove this comment and name the cases better.
>
>> static struct kunit_case clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_cases[] = {
>> - KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate),
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case1),
>
> Maybe call it clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_request_zero?
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case2),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_lower_than_parents_fails
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case3),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_exactly_parent1
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case4),
>
> I'm not sure I understand what is being tested in this case. Are we
> testing that __clk_determine_rate() with a rate between parent0 and
> parent1 picks parent1?
I think I have to speak more about how these tests are arranged. Imagine
that there is a segment starting at 0, ending at ULONG_MAX. Now add two
points on it, assuming DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1(142MHz) and
DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2(242MHz). We split the segment into 3 segments, and we
have 4 endpoints in total. They are: 0, 0-142MHz, 142MHz, 142MHz-242MHz,
242MHz-ULONG_MAX, ULONG_MAX. Ideally, we need to test all these 7 cases.
For those 4 points, the tests should be straightforward. But for the 3
segments, we can only extract a random point on it to test. Besides, I
think requesting for 142MHz or 242MHz has no big difference, so I
omitted one of them. The original
clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate() is considered to be one of
the cases here, for which I think should be absorbed and renamed.
And as said in the previous email, the situation here would become even
more complicated if CLK_MUX_ROUND_CLOSEST is true. I guess it should be
in another patchset.
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case5),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_larger_than_parents
>
>> + KUNIT_CASE(clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_determine_rate_case6),
>
> clk_leaf_mux_determine_rate_ULONG_MAX_picks_parent1
--
Best regards,
Yang Xiwen