From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 689E81D07B5; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:46:43 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727999203; cv=none; b=LU2PAKJddXrTex3XWi0Ovw9ukpmkW64RJCrp75oVfp/MGYNfTKecCAh31KmxbVE/kDlj9hipLYGVQ5ibNFB6JoMMfd1sGOo39ffkzaeNSwH31b1gEDW5vOM4zSjWoQM8eeCPVvg/DHLVDQWfCxsdzJwJjE3DIm9S8GGi2YEkgXg= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727999203; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d87RLPsqMRDHm/5vfS1K/yGBaUfYR1Kog9kelwLBOdY=; h=Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References: Subject:From:Cc:To:Date; b=MrAD9A3q0EOzhRdDxpsLNf96jE6iEhByWkKDBXgULewFUD45BF0LRBTnEHDwZy1TCmvy+PFK+gI0l7ENBK/XYhT9O4s7eJCvYsr/cLSVge0QJvPf+BjkyxTG8Z5lTi+4215c+/IGhH04ZTMf7uXAVKNTUsTQmnB4pxIyYEsN0c8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=F5/19+JC; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="F5/19+JC" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8913C4CEC5; Thu, 3 Oct 2024 23:46:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1727999203; bh=d87RLPsqMRDHm/5vfS1K/yGBaUfYR1Kog9kelwLBOdY=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc:To:Date:From; b=F5/19+JCZah2NSLpQZhUQKdl4Pt0gLFrrpcxQ0Dla+wSNiw0wawlki9X3g/Idypyy qYKCXSIAxvzSc5DyaLorD4OPtCtF9ZQXuq943etotmLYgRbGGwbu7mPtA7zeE2NveO h4GHghokJ8A4kx6I80UV9HttQUmq9eFq3r0VjOPaIuFcn2hWW2XyLHk/rwr34Nr4ZT yhaZWgNws0V85RoJa1hC1jOJCVyJdCvphFgsa2WWhitUlHZ9tBqC3l6R9pks9lNyXG Ub71agYtEk82GIP4knWK4ChTjRDh9WLYyqsWi2UmiHUo9AQz+orDSs4oIH99ZbnHjF r2GGfQhxyVfCw== Message-ID: <4a8abb5f501279de7907629f4dd6be24.sboyd@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: patches@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: References: <20240718210513.3801024-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <6cd337fb-38f0-41cb-b942-5844b84433db@roeck-us.net> <6f5a5b5f-71a7-4ed3-8cb3-d930bbce599b@linuxfoundation.org> <4216b852-11a2-41ae-bb01-5f9b578ee41b@roeck-us.net> <879831a8-2039-4cdb-bce2-aefdeb7ab25f@linuxfoundation.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] clk: Add KUnit tests for clks registered with struct clk_parent_data From: Stephen Boyd Cc: Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Brendan Higgins , David Gow , Rae Moar , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rafael J . Wysocki , Rob Herring , Saravana Kannan , Daniel Latypov , Christian Marangi , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Maxime Ripard , Geert Uytterhoeven To: Guenter Roeck , Shuah Khan Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 16:46:40 -0700 User-Agent: alot/0.10 Quoting Guenter Roeck (2024-09-28 14:32:35) > On 9/28/24 12:27, Shuah Khan wrote: > > On 9/28/24 11:54, Shuah Khan wrote: > >> On 9/28/24 11:31, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>> On 9/27/24 17:08, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>> On 9/27/24 13:45, Shuah Khan wrote: > >>>>> On 9/27/24 10:19, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>>> Copying devicetree maintainers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 09:39:38PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 09:14:11PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi Stephen, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 02:05:07PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>>>>>>>> Test that clks registered with 'struct clk_parent_data' work as > >>>>>>>>> intended and can find their parents. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> When testing this on arm64, I see the error below. The error is = only > >>>>>>>> seen if I boot through efi, i.e., with "-bios QEMU_EFI-aarch64.f= d" > >>>>>>>> qemu parameter. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Any idea what might cause the problem ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I noticed that the new overlay tests fail as well, also with "pat= h '/' not > >>>>>>> found". > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [Maybe] answering my own question: I think the problem may be tha= t there > >>>>>>> is no devicetree file and thus no devicetree root when booting th= rough > >>>>>>> efi (in other words, of_root is NULL). Would it make sense to ski= p the > >>>>>>> tests in that case ? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The problem is that of_root is not initialized in arm64 boots if A= CPI > >>>>>> is enabled. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =C2=A0From arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c:setup_arch(): > >>>>>> > >>>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0if (acpi_disabled) > >>>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 unflatten_device_tree()= ;=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 // initializes of_root Oof I forgot that Rob didn't apply the patch that let an empty root live on ARM64 ACPI systems. See this thread[1] for all the details. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ACPI is enabled if the system boots from EFI. This also affects > >>>>>> CONFIG_OF_KUNIT_TEST, which explicitly checks if of_root exists and > >>>>>> fails the test if it doesn't. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think those tests need to add a check for this condition, or aff= ected > >>>>>> machines won't be able to run those unit tests. The obvious soluti= on would > >>>>>> be to check if of_root is set, but then the associated test case in > >>>>>> CONFIG_OF_KUNIT_TEST would not make sense. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Any suggestions ? > >>>>>> I think that's the best we can do for now. Basically add a check like if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) && acpi_disabled) kunit_skip(test, "ARM64 + ACPI rejects DT overlays"); to the overlay application function and the DT test. > >>>>> > >>>>> Would it work if these tests check if acpi_disabled and skip if it = isn't > >>>>> disabled? It might be low overhead condition to check from these te= sts. > >>>>> > >>>>> acpi_disabled is exported: > >>>>> > >>>>> arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled); > >>>>> arch/loongarch/kernel/acpi.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled); > >>>>> arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled); > >>>>> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled); > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I don't think that would work. Looking through the use of acpi_init, > >>>> I don't think that of_root is always NULL when acpi_init is false; t= hat > >>>> just happens to be the case on arm64 when booting through efi. > >>>> However, even arm64 has the following code. > >>>> > >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (acpi_disabled) > >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 psci_dt_init(); > >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 else > >>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 psci_acpi_init(); > >>>> > >>>> While psci_dt_init() doesn't set of_root, it does try to do a device= tree > >>>> match. So there must be some other condition where acpi_disabled is = set > >>>> but of_root is set anyway. I just have not found that code path. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I ended up disabling all affected unit tests for arm64. I'll do the s= ame > >>> for other architectures if I encounter the problem there as well. > >>> > >>> Unfortunately that includes all clock unit tests because the tests re= quiring > >>> devicetree support can not be enabled/disabled separately, but that c= an't be > >>> helped and is still better than "mandatory" failures. > >>> > >> > >=20 > > of_root is set in drivers/of/pdt.c when it creates the root node. > > This could be a definitive test for kunit tests that depend on > > devicetree support. > >=20 >=20 > That is not always the case, including arm64. It is primarily set in > unflatten_devicetree(), which is not called on arm64 unless acpi_is disab= led > (see above). >=20 > > It is an exported symbol. drivers/of/base.c exports it. > >=20 >=20 > Yes, checking if of_root is NULL and skipping the test in that case might= help, > but then there is the of_dtb_root_node_populates_of_root unit test which > explicitly fails if of_root is NULL. The comment describing the test is >=20 > /* > * Test that the 'of_root' global variable is always populated when DT c= ode is > * enabled. Remove this test once of_root is removed from global access. > */ >=20 > The devicetree unit test code explicitly assumes that of_root is set if > CONFIG_OF_EARLY_FLATTREE is enabled, but that is not always the case > (again, of_root is NULL on arm64 unless acpi is disabled). >=20 That DT test has been there for a few releases. Is this the first time those tests have been run on arm64+acpi? I didn't try after sending the patches and forgot that the patch was dropped. How are you running kunit tests? I installed the qemu-efi-aarch64 debian package to get QEMU_EFI.fd but passing that to the kunit.py run command with --qemu_args=3D"-bios /usr/share/qemu-efi-aarch64/QEMU_EFI.fd" didn't get me beyond the point that the EFI stub boots linux. I think the serial console must not be working and thus the kunit wrapper waits for something to show up but nothing ever does. I haven't dug any further though, so maybe you have a working command. Here's my command that isn't working: ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch=3Darm64 --kunitconfig=3Ddrivers/o= f --qemu_args=3D"-bios /usr/share/qemu-efi-aarch64/QEMU_EFI.fd"=09 [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240217010557.2381548-6-sboyd@kernel.org/