[PATCH v2 08/10] clk: test: introduce helper to create a mock mux

Brian Masney posted 10 patches 6 months, 3 weeks ago
[PATCH v2 08/10] clk: test: introduce helper to create a mock mux
Posted by Brian Masney 6 months, 3 weeks ago
Introduce a helper to create a mock mux to reduce code duplication.
This also changes it so that the relevant clk_hws are registered with
the kunit framework.

Signed-off-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>
---
 drivers/clk/clk_test.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
index 1440eb3c41def8c549f92c0e95b2a472f3bdb4a7..147935975969f8da4a9365c0fac6ffe37e310933 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
@@ -538,45 +538,64 @@ static struct kunit_suite clk_uncached_test_suite = {
 	.test_cases = clk_uncached_test_cases,
 };
 
-static int
-clk_multiple_parents_mux_test_init(struct kunit *test)
-{
-	struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx;
-	const char *parents[2] = { "parent-0", "parent-1"};
+static int clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(struct kunit *test,
+					struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx,
+					const char *parent0_name,
+					unsigned long parent0_rate,
+					const char *parent1_name,
+					unsigned long parent1_rate,
+					const char *mux_name, int mux_flags,
+					const struct clk_ops *mux_ops)
+{
+	const struct clk_hw *parents[2];
 	int ret;
 
-	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
-	if (!ctx)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	test->priv = ctx;
-
-	ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-0",
+	ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT(parent0_name,
 							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
 							    0);
-	ctx->parents_ctx[0].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1;
+	ctx->parents_ctx[0].rate = parent0_rate;
 	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-1",
+	ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT(parent1_name,
 							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
 							    0);
-	ctx->parents_ctx[1].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2;
+	ctx->parents_ctx[1].rate = parent1_rate;
 	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
-	ctx->current_parent = 0;
-	ctx->hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS("test-mux", parents,
-					   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops,
-					   CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
+	parents[0] = &ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw;
+	parents[1] = &ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw;
+	ctx->hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS_HW(mux_name, parents,
+					      mux_ops, mux_flags);
 	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->hw);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
+	ctx->current_parent = 0;
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int
+clk_multiple_parents_mux_test_init(struct kunit *test)
+{
+	struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx;
+
+	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ctx)
+		return -ENOMEM;
+	test->priv = ctx;
+
+	return clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(test, ctx,
+					    "parent-0", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1,
+					    "parent-1", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2,
+					    "test-mux", CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
+					    &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops);
+}
+
 /*
  * Test that for a clock with multiple parents, clk_get_parent()
  * actually returns the current one.
@@ -2536,7 +2555,6 @@ static int
 clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_init(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	struct clk_leaf_mux_ctx *ctx;
-	const char *top_parents[2] = { "parent-0", "parent-1" };
 	int ret;
 
 	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -2544,27 +2562,11 @@ clk_leaf_mux_set_rate_parent_test_init(struct kunit *test)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	test->priv = ctx;
 
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-0",
-								    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-								    0);
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-1",
-								    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-								    0);
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->mux_ctx.current_parent = 0;
-	ctx->mux_ctx.hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS("test-mux", top_parents,
-						   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops,
-						   0);
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
+	ret = clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(test, &ctx->mux_ctx,
+					   "parent-0", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1,
+					   "parent-1", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2,
+					   "test-mux", 0,
+					   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
@@ -2752,7 +2754,6 @@ static int clk_mux_notifier_callback(struct notifier_block *nb,
 static int clk_mux_notifier_test_init(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	struct clk_mux_notifier_ctx *ctx;
-	const char *top_parents[2] = { "parent-0", "parent-1" };
 	int ret;
 
 	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -2763,27 +2764,11 @@ static int clk_mux_notifier_test_init(struct kunit *test)
 	init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->pre_rate_change.wq);
 	init_waitqueue_head(&ctx->post_rate_change.wq);
 
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-0",
-								    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-								    0);
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[0].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-1",
-								    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-								    0);
-	ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.parents_ctx[1].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->mux_ctx.current_parent = 0;
-	ctx->mux_ctx.hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS("test-mux", top_parents,
-						   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops,
-						   0);
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->mux_ctx.hw);
+	ret = clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(test, &ctx->mux_ctx,
+					   "parent-0", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1,
+					   "parent-1", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2,
+					   "test-mux", 0,
+					   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops);
 	if (ret)
 		return ret;
 
@@ -2866,39 +2851,17 @@ static int
 clk_mux_no_reparent_test_init(struct kunit *test)
 {
 	struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx;
-	const char *parents[2] = { "parent-0", "parent-1"};
-	int ret;
 
 	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
 	if (!ctx)
 		return -ENOMEM;
 	test->priv = ctx;
 
-	ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-0",
-							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-							    0);
-	ctx->parents_ctx[0].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-1",
-							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
-							    0);
-	ctx->parents_ctx[1].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2;
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	ctx->current_parent = 0;
-	ctx->hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS("test-mux", parents,
-					   &clk_multiple_parents_no_reparent_mux_ops,
-					   0);
-	ret = clk_hw_register(NULL, &ctx->hw);
-	if (ret)
-		return ret;
-
-	return 0;
+	return clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(test, ctx,
+					    "parent-0", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1,
+					    "parent-1", DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2,
+					    "test-mux", 0,
+					    &clk_multiple_parents_no_reparent_mux_ops);
 }
 
 static void

-- 
2.49.0
Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] clk: test: introduce helper to create a mock mux
Posted by Maxime Ripard 6 months, 1 week ago
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 07:16:54PM -0400, Brian Masney wrote:
> Introduce a helper to create a mock mux to reduce code duplication.
> This also changes it so that the relevant clk_hws are registered with
> the kunit framework.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk_test.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------------------
>  1 file changed, 52 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
> index 1440eb3c41def8c549f92c0e95b2a472f3bdb4a7..147935975969f8da4a9365c0fac6ffe37e310933 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk_test.c
> @@ -538,45 +538,64 @@ static struct kunit_suite clk_uncached_test_suite = {
>  	.test_cases = clk_uncached_test_cases,
>  };
>  
> -static int
> -clk_multiple_parents_mux_test_init(struct kunit *test)
> -{
> -	struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx;
> -	const char *parents[2] = { "parent-0", "parent-1"};
> +static int clk_init_multiple_parent_ctx(struct kunit *test,
> +					struct clk_multiple_parent_ctx *ctx,
> +					const char *parent0_name,
> +					unsigned long parent0_rate,
> +					const char *parent1_name,
> +					unsigned long parent1_rate,
> +					const char *mux_name, int mux_flags,
> +					const struct clk_ops *mux_ops)
> +{
> +	const struct clk_hw *parents[2];
>  	int ret;
>  
> -	ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL);
> -	if (!ctx)
> -		return -ENOMEM;
> -	test->priv = ctx;
> -
> -	ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-0",
> +	ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT(parent0_name,
>  							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
>  							    0);
> -	ctx->parents_ctx[0].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_1;
> +	ctx->parents_ctx[0].rate = parent0_rate;
>  	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT("parent-1",
> +	ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_NO_PARENT(parent1_name,
>  							    &clk_dummy_rate_ops,
>  							    0);
> -	ctx->parents_ctx[1].rate = DUMMY_CLOCK_RATE_2;
> +	ctx->parents_ctx[1].rate = parent1_rate;
>  	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> -	ctx->current_parent = 0;
> -	ctx->hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS("test-mux", parents,
> -					   &clk_multiple_parents_mux_ops,
> -					   CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT);
> +	parents[0] = &ctx->parents_ctx[0].hw;
> +	parents[1] = &ctx->parents_ctx[1].hw;
> +	ctx->hw.init = CLK_HW_INIT_PARENTS_HW(mux_name, parents,
> +					      mux_ops, mux_flags);
>  	ret = clk_hw_register_kunit(test, NULL, &ctx->hw);
>  	if (ret)
>  		return ret;
>  
> +	ctx->current_parent = 0;
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }

In this patch too, I'm wondering if we're not making it more complex
than it needs to be. I can see how small variations (like the parent
flags, or ops, or...) will all sound reasonable, but will turn this
allegedly simple function into a large, hard-to-parse, one

Maxime