On 10/9/23 11:32, Simon Glass wrote:
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?
With UNIT_TEST of course. Although since this is a forward-declaration, the
UNIT_TEST ifdef isn't really even necessary. If it's on actual hardware, nop
should already be defined. So maybe this should be something like
#if CONFIG_SANDBOX
#define nop()
#endif
--Sean
