Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Wed, 4 Sep 2019 19:10:51 +0300 | From | Sakari Ailus <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 11/11] lib/test_printf: Add tests for %pfw printk modifier |
| |
Hi Andy,
On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:13:52PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 04:57:32PM +0300, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Add a test for the %pfw printk modifier using software nodes. > > > +static void __init fwnode_pointer(void) > > +{ > > + const struct software_node softnodes[] = { > > + { .name = "first", }, > > + { .name = "second", .parent = &softnodes[0], }, > > + { .name = "third", .parent = &softnodes[1], }, > > + { NULL /* Guardian */ }, > > Comma is still here :-)
Oops. I ended up removing the comma in a wrong patch which wasn't submitted to the list. Will fix for v6.
> > > + }; > > > + test(full_name_second, "%pfw", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3])); > > + test(full_name, "%pfw", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > + test(full_name, "%pfwf", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > + test(second_name, "%pfwP", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 3])); > > + test(third_name, "%pfwP", > > + software_node_fwnode(&softnodes[ARRAY_SIZE(softnodes) - 2])); > > I have another thought about these. The test cases will fail in either of > adding, inserting or removing items in softnodes array. So, using the above > "protective" scheme doesn't bring any value except making readability worse.
Agreed, to be addressed in v6.
-- Regards,
Sakari Ailus sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com
|  |