Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/9] test: fdt_test_apply requires CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2014 bytes --]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2025 at 11:10:02AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:

> The `fdt apply` sub-command is only available if CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY
> is enabled.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@canonical.com>
> ---
>  test/cmd/fdt.c | 3 +++
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/test/cmd/fdt.c b/test/cmd/fdt.c
> index 96a8488e172..a36f2dcdda8 100644
> --- a/test/cmd/fdt.c
> +++ b/test/cmd/fdt.c
> @@ -1319,6 +1319,9 @@ static int fdt_test_apply(struct unit_test_state *uts)
>  	char fdt[8192], fdto[8192];
>  	ulong addr, addro;
>  
> +	if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF_LIBFDT_OVERLAY))
> +		return -EAGAIN;
> +
>  	/* Create base DT with __symbols__ node */
>  	ut_assertok(fdt_create(fdt, sizeof(fdt)));
>  	ut_assertok(fdt_finish_reservemap(fdt));

So, this is interesting. As part of merging this, I see that on
qemu_arm64 for example:
               u-boot: add: 0/0, grow: 4/-4 bytes: 284/-9691 (-9407)
                 function                                   old     new   delta
                 print_hexdump_line                         472     556     +84
                 fdt_test_move                              568     652     +84
                 print_do_hex_dump                         1704    1764     +60
                 print_display_buffer                      1736    1792     +56
                 static.__func__                           5670    5655     -15
                 bdinfo_test_all                           3064    2884    -180
                 fdt_test_chosen                           1496     516    -980
                 fdt_test_apply                            8524       8   -8516

So we're as expected shrinking fdt_test_apply with a build time
optimization. But we've been building and running this test as can be
seen in older pipelines and their published artifacts. Should it not
have been a failing test? Did it fail for you somewhere or was this
found by inspection?

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]