[PATCH v2 02/10] test: pinmux: Add test for pin muxing

[Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>]

On 6/17/20 10:07 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Sean,
> 
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 at 21:18, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 6/16/20 11:11 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Sean,
>>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 19:27, Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This extends the pinctrl-sandbox driver to support pin muxing, and adds a
>>>> test for that behaviour. The test is done in C and not python (like the
>>>> existing tests for the pinctrl uclass) because it needs to call
>>>> pinctrl_select_state.  Another option could be to add a command that
>>>> invokes pinctrl_select_state and then test everything in
>>>> test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py.
>>>>
>>>> The pinctrl-sandbox driver now mimics the way that many pinmux devices
>>>> work.  There are two groups of pins which are muxed together, as well as
>>>> four pins which are muxed individually. I have tried to test all normal
>>>> paths. However, very few error cases are explicitly checked for.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <seanga2@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> - New
>>>>
>>>>  arch/sandbox/dts/test.dts         |  45 +++++++--
>>>>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-sandbox.c | 155 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>  test/dm/Makefile                  |   3 +
>>>>  test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py      |  36 +++----
>>>>  4 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 61 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>
>>>> diff --git a/test/dm/Makefile b/test/dm/Makefile
>>>> index 0d1c66fa1e..9e273ee02d 100644
>>>> --- a/test/dm/Makefile
>>>> +++ b/test/dm/Makefile
>>>> @@ -76,4 +76,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_DM_RNG) += rng.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_CLK_K210_SET_RATE) += k210_pll.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_SIMPLE_PM_BUS) += simple-pm-bus.o
>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_RESET_SYSCON) += syscon-reset.o
>>>> +ifneq ($(CONFIG_PINMUX),)
>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_PINCONF) += pinmux.o
>>>
>>> I don't see this file in your patch.
>>
>> Whoops, will add it next revision.
>>
>>>
>>>> +endif
>>>>  endif
>>>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py b/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>>>> index 4e6df992a4..0cbbae000c 100644
>>>> --- a/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>>>> +++ b/test/py/tests/test_pinmux.py
>>>> @@ -28,15 +28,15 @@ def test_pinmux_status_all(u_boot_console):
>>>
>>> Feel free to convert this to C also if you like. It is faster,
>>> although perhaps not much faster since it only runs a few commands?
>>
>> Ok, I can have a look.
>>
>> Should C be preferred for new tests?
> 
> +Stephen Warren
> 
> For sandbox tests, yes. If there is a lot of interaction, Python is
> extremely slow.
> 
> But with Python we can run a test on real hardware without compiling
> the test into U-Boot. So there are benefits on both sides.

Ok, I looked into it, and the python test uses the 
    assert 'somestring' in output
idiom a lot. From what I can tell, there's not an easy way to replicate
this behavior on the C side of things. Adding a function to do this
would probably call for its own patch. I could also use the existing
functionality to test for lines, but I think that would be much more
brittle when compared to the python version.

--Sean