Re: [PATCH 2/2] of: unittest: treat missing of_root as error instead of fixing up

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>]

On 6/28/22 10:36, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 10:43:27PM -0500, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote:
>> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>>  setup_of() now ensures that of_root node is populated with the
>>  root of a default devicetree. Remove the unittest code that
>>  created of_root if it was missing.  Verify that of_root is
>>  valid before attempting to attach the testcase-data subtree.
> 
> What happened with the formatting here?

I'm guessing you are referring to the leading space?

I pasted the text from another file into the commit message in
my repo and failed to remove the leading blank. So a "typo"
on my part.

-Frank

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/of/unittest.c | 16 ++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> index 7f6bba18c515..9d106998c1f2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> @@ -1469,20 +1469,16 @@ static int __init unittest_data_add(void)
>>  		return -EINVAL;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	if (!of_root) {
>> -		of_root = unittest_data_node;
>> -		for_each_of_allnodes(np)
>> -			__of_attach_node_sysfs(np);
>> -		of_aliases = of_find_node_by_path("/aliases");
>> -		of_chosen = of_find_node_by_path("/chosen");
>> -		of_overlay_mutex_unlock();
>> -		return 0;
>> -	}
>> -
>>  	EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_INFO,
>>  		     "Duplicate name in testcase-data, renamed to \"duplicate-name#1\"");
>>  
>>  	/* attach the sub-tree to live tree */
>> +	if (!of_root) {
>> +		pr_warn("%s: no live tree to attach sub-tree\n", __func__);
>> +		kfree(unittest_data);
>> +		return -ENODEV;
>> +	}
>> +
>>  	np = unittest_data_node->child;
>>  	while (np) {
>>  		struct device_node *next = np->sibling;
>> -- 
>> Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@sony.com>
>>
>>