On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 05:54:57PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado nfraprado@collabora.com On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 12:10:46AM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado nfraprado@collabora.com Add a sample board file describing the file's format and with the list of devices expected to be probed on the google,spherion machine as an example.
Signed-off-by: Nícolas F. R. A. Prado nfraprado@collabora.com
(no changes since v1)
.../testing/selftests/devices/boards/google,spherion | 12 ++++++++++++
Overall, while trying to maintain a comprehensive set of board definitions seems hard, I think having a few as examples is useful.
I'm not a big fan of naming these with a comma in the name. Is there a reason you are not using dash or underscore?
I'm using the name that we get from the DT compatible, so the right file can be automatically selected by the test.
Do you anticipate a convention of <producer> <board-or-product-name> tuples for the filename?
I'd just stick to the DT compatible as it's the simplest option and should work just the same, assuming I understood correctly what you mean.
OK - I see that was mentioned in the original submission. I should have read more closely.
It makes sense. Maybe it's worth mentioning in the commit message that the filename is the compatible string from the DT for this board?
This convention, IMHO, should be documented somewhere.
I have that as part of the comment at the top of the test script in patch 1:
# The per-platform list of devices to be tested is stored inside the boards/ # directory and chosen based on compatible.
And also in the commit message of patch 1.
But I guess this sample file is the most likely one to be read when someone writes a new board file, so I'll document it here too for next version.
Thanks, Nícolas