Re: [PATCH 3/3] test: dm: add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay

On 2026-07-30T09:48:14, Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]> wrote:
> test: dm: add sandbox coverage for gpio-delay
>
> gpio-delay had no sandbox coverage, which is how two bugs in it went
> unnoticed: gpio_delay_xlate() never propagated the requested index
> into the descriptor offset, so every consumer past the first silently
> collided with the first consumer's already-claimed offset 0; and the
> claimed/name tracking arrays were sized and bounds-checked against a
> hardcoded 32 instead of the driver's actual GPIO count. Both are fixed
> by a companion series that is a dependency of this patch: applied
> without it, this test fails outright, since it directly exercises
> both fixes.
>
> Add a test requesting both consumers wired up by gpio-delay-test in
> test.dts (gpio_a 9 and 18): a third consumer colliding with an
> already-claimed offset must fail with -EBUSY, each consumer's write
> must land on its own wrapped GPIO line, and a request past the
> wrapped GPIO count must fail with -EINVAL rather than succeed against
> a hardcoded bound of 32.
>
> Gated on CONFIG_GPIO_DELAY, since not every sandbox variant that
> builds test/dm/gpio.c enables it (sandbox_vpl, sandbox_spl,
> sandbox_noinst, sandbox_flattree).
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranav Sanwal <[email protected]>
>
> test/dm/gpio.c | 69 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 69 insertions(+)

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]>