| // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 |
| /* |
| * KUnit test for the linear_ranges helper. |
| * |
| * Copyright (C) 2020, ROHM Semiconductors. |
| * Author: Matti Vaittinen <matti.vaittien@fi.rohmeurope.com> |
| */ |
| #include <kunit/test.h> |
| |
| #include <linux/linear_range.h> |
| |
| /* First things first. I deeply dislike unit-tests. I have seen all the hell |
| * breaking loose when people who think the unit tests are "the silver bullet" |
| * to kill bugs get to decide how a company should implement testing strategy... |
| * |
| * Believe me, it may get _really_ ridiculous. It is tempting to think that |
| * walking through all the possible execution branches will nail down 100% of |
| * bugs. This may lead to ideas about demands to get certain % of "test |
| * coverage" - measured as line coverage. And that is one of the worst things |
| * you can do. |
| * |
| * Ask people to provide line coverage and they do. I've seen clever tools |
| * which generate test cases to test the existing functions - and by default |
| * these tools expect code to be correct and just generate checks which are |
| * passing when ran against current code-base. Run this generator and you'll get |
| * tests that do not test code is correct but just verify nothing changes. |
| * Problem is that testing working code is pointless. And if it is not |
| * working, your test must not assume it is working. You won't catch any bugs |
| * by such tests. What you can do is to generate a huge amount of tests. |
| * Especially if you were are asked to proivde 100% line-coverage x_x. So what |
| * does these tests - which are not finding any bugs now - do? |
| * |
| * They add inertia to every future development. I think it was Terry Pratchet |
| * who wrote someone having same impact as thick syrup has to chronometre. |
| * Excessive amount of unit-tests have this effect to development. If you do |
| * actually find _any_ bug from code in such environment and try fixing it... |
| * ...chances are you also need to fix the test cases. In sunny day you fix one |
| * test. But I've done refactoring which resulted 500+ broken tests (which had |
| * really zero value other than proving to managers that we do do "quality")... |
| * |
| * After this being said - there are situations where UTs can be handy. If you |
| * have algorithms which take some input and should produce output - then you |
| * can implement few, carefully selected simple UT-cases which test this. I've |
| * previously used this for example for netlink and device-tree data parsing |
| * functions. Feed some data examples to functions and verify the output is as |
| * expected. I am not covering all the cases but I will see the logic should be |
| * working. |
| * |
| * Here we also do some minor testing. I don't want to go through all branches |
| * or test more or less obvious things - but I want to see the main logic is |
| * working. And I definitely don't want to add 500+ test cases that break when |
| * some simple fix is done x_x. So - let's only add few, well selected tests |
| * which ensure as much logic is good as possible. |
| */ |
| |
| /* |
| * Test Range 1: |
| * selectors: 2 3 4 5 6 |
| * values (5): 10 20 30 40 50 |
| * |
| * Test Range 2: |
| * selectors: 7 8 9 10 |
| * values (4): 100 150 200 250 |
| */ |
| |
| #define RANGE1_MIN 10 |
| #define RANGE1_MIN_SEL 2 |
| #define RANGE1_STEP 10 |
| |
| /* 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 */ |
| static const unsigned int range1_sels[] = { RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 1, |
| RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 2, |
| RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 3, |
| RANGE1_MIN_SEL + 4 }; |
| /* 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 */ |
| static const unsigned int range1_vals[] = { RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN + |
| RANGE1_STEP, |
| RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 2, |
| RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 3, |
| RANGE1_MIN + RANGE1_STEP * 4 }; |
| |
| #define RANGE2_MIN 100 |
| #define RANGE2_MIN_SEL 7 |
| #define RANGE2_STEP 50 |
| |
| /* 7, 8, 9, 10 */ |
| static const unsigned int range2_sels[] = { RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 1, |
| RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 2, |
| RANGE2_MIN_SEL + 3 }; |
| /* 100, 150, 200, 250 */ |
| static const unsigned int range2_vals[] = { RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN + |
| RANGE2_STEP, |
| RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 2, |
| RANGE2_MIN + RANGE2_STEP * 3 }; |
| |
| #define RANGE1_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range1_vals)) |
| #define RANGE2_NUM_VALS (ARRAY_SIZE(range2_vals)) |
| #define RANGE_NUM_VALS (RANGE1_NUM_VALS + RANGE2_NUM_VALS) |
| |
| #define RANGE1_MAX_SEL (RANGE1_MIN_SEL + RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1) |
| #define RANGE1_MAX_VAL (range1_vals[RANGE1_NUM_VALS - 1]) |
| |
| #define RANGE2_MAX_SEL (RANGE2_MIN_SEL + RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1) |
| #define RANGE2_MAX_VAL (range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1]) |
| |
| #define SMALLEST_SEL RANGE1_MIN_SEL |
| #define SMALLEST_VAL RANGE1_MIN |
| |
| static struct linear_range testr[] = { |
| LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE1_MIN, RANGE1_MIN_SEL, RANGE1_MAX_SEL, RANGE1_STEP), |
| LINEAR_RANGE(RANGE2_MIN, RANGE2_MIN_SEL, RANGE2_MAX_SEL, RANGE2_STEP), |
| }; |
| |
| static void range_test_get_value(struct kunit *test) |
| { |
| int ret, i; |
| unsigned int sel, val; |
| |
| for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { |
| sel = range1_sels[i]; |
| ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range1_vals[i]); |
| } |
| for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) { |
| sel = range2_sels[i]; |
| ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel, &val); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, val, range2_vals[i]); |
| } |
| ret = linear_range_get_value_array(&testr[0], 2, sel + 1, &val); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_NE(test, 0, ret); |
| } |
| |
| static void range_test_get_selector_high(struct kunit *test) |
| { |
| int ret, i; |
| unsigned int sel; |
| bool found; |
| |
| for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], range1_vals[i], |
| &sel, &found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); |
| } |
| |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MAX_VAL + 1, |
| &sel, &found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_LE(test, ret, 0); |
| |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_high(&testr[0], RANGE1_MIN - 1, |
| &sel, &found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[0]); |
| } |
| |
| static void range_test_get_value_amount(struct kunit *test) |
| { |
| int ret; |
| |
| ret = linear_range_values_in_range_array(&testr[0], 2); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (int)RANGE_NUM_VALS, ret); |
| } |
| |
| static void range_test_get_selector_low(struct kunit *test) |
| { |
| int i, ret; |
| unsigned int sel; |
| bool found; |
| |
| for (i = 0; i < RANGE1_NUM_VALS; i++) { |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, |
| range1_vals[i], &sel, |
| &found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range1_sels[i]); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); |
| } |
| for (i = 0; i < RANGE2_NUM_VALS; i++) { |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, |
| range2_vals[i], &sel, |
| &found); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[i]); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, found); |
| } |
| |
| /* |
| * Seek value greater than range max => get_selector_*_low should |
| * return Ok - but set found to false as value is not in range |
| */ |
| ret = linear_range_get_selector_low_array(&testr[0], 2, |
| range2_vals[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1] + 1, |
| &sel, &found); |
| |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, ret); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sel, range2_sels[RANGE2_NUM_VALS - 1]); |
| KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, found); |
| } |
| |
| static struct kunit_case range_test_cases[] = { |
| KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value_amount), |
| KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_high), |
| KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_selector_low), |
| KUNIT_CASE(range_test_get_value), |
| {}, |
| }; |
| |
| static struct kunit_suite range_test_module = { |
| .name = "linear-ranges-test", |
| .test_cases = range_test_cases, |
| }; |
| |
| kunit_test_suites(&range_test_module); |
| |
| MODULE_LICENSE("GPL"); |