Hi Sean, On Mon, 9 Oct 2023 at 17:40, Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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
It is the CONFIG_SANDBOX that I am trying to remove. Can it be CONFIG_UNIT_TEST instead? Regards, Simon