Hi Sean, On Sat, 7 Oct 2023 at 17:21, Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10/7/23 19:10, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Tom. > > > > On Sun, 24 Sept 2023 at 18:43, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 02:39:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > >>> This code is normally compiled for Tegra, but sandbox can also compile > >>> it. We should not use UNIT_TEST as a synonym for SANDBOX, since it is > >>> possible to disable UNIT_TEST for sandbox. > >>> > >>> Correct the condition. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > >>> --- > >>> > >>> include/k210/pll.h | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/include/k210/pll.h b/include/k210/pll.h > >>> index fd16a89cb203..6dd60b2eb4fc 100644 > >>> --- a/include/k210/pll.h > >>> +++ b/include/k210/pll.h > >>> @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ struct k210_pll_config { > >>> u8 od; > >>> }; > >>> > >>> -#ifdef CONFIG_UNIT_TEST > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_SANDBOX > >>> TEST_STATIC int k210_pll_calc_config(u32 rate, u32 rate_in, > >>> struct k210_pll_config *best); > >>> #ifndef nop > >> > >> Tegra? Do you mean sifive? That's where CLK_K210 stuff is... but it > > > > Oh yes, I got confused. > > > >> also seems wrong, you can run unit test on real hardware, and this is a > >> test that could (should?) be run on that platform. > > > > Only if it enables UNIT_TEST. You cannot run unit tests without that. > > The current tests are designed for sandbox. > > FWIW I have run this test on actual hardware. My intent here was to allow > unit tests to access functions which would otherwise be declared static.
Er, with or without UNIT_TEST enabled? How can it even build if this declaration is only for sandbox? Regards, Simon