Re: [PATCH v9 0/5] Introduce Python bindings for libfdt

[David Gibson <david-xT8FGy+AXnRB3Ne2BGzF6laj5H9X9Tb+@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2362 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 08:20:53AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> On 4 March 2017 at 16:52, Simon Glass <sjg-F7+t8E8rja9g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >
> > At present libfdt consists of only a C implementation. Many scripts are
> > written using Python so it useful to have Python bindings for libfdt.
> > Apparently this has never been attempted before, or if so I cannot find a
> > reference.
> >
> > This series starts the process of adding this support, with just a
> > bare-bones set of methods.
> >
> > The v8 series provides binding that can be used like this:
> >
> >     fdt = libfdt.Fdt(open(fname).read())
> >     node = fdt.path_offset('/subnode@1')
> >     print fdt.get_prop(node, 'compatible')
> >     subnode = fdt.first_subnode(node, quiet=[libfdt.NOTFOUND])
> >     while subnode > 0:
> >         print fdt.get_name(subnode)
> >         subnode = fdt.next_subnode(subnode, quiet=[libfdt.NOTFOUND])
> 
> Just checking in to see how this looks now? I sent one v10 patch but
> the rest is as is. Let me know if you'd like me to send the whole
> thing again.

Sorry, my day job has been kind of hectic lately.

So, for one thing, yes, I'd like a repost of the whole set - I didn't
keep the last spin ready to hand.

But I'm also still not thrilled with the behaviour in the v10 patch
you posted. It prints information _only_ if there are failures, which
makes it a drag to check, and confusing since the tests show up in the
final numbers but have no other visibility.

I think this can go one of two ways:
   - Give the Python tests close to the existing testcases.  I realize
     that's awkward since they use python unittest not the existing
     home-rolled framework, but do what you can.

or
   - Don't integrate the python tests at all.  Have make check run the
     existing testsuite, then the python test suite (if python is
     available).  This should produce *some* output for both parts in
     all cases (so you know it has run), even if it's just a minimal
     summary for the unittest part.  Don't include the python tests in
     the totals for the other part.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]