Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] kselftest: Add new test for detecting unprobed Devicetree devices
Nícolas F. R. A. Prado <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.kernelci,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kselftest |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <e9772963-56e8-4465-9c29-3a2955b6f546@notapiano> |
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 08:18:49PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 05:13:12PM -0400, NÃcolas F. R. A. Prado wrote: > > Introduce a new kselftest to detect devices that were declared in the > > Devicetree, and are expected to be probed by a driver, but weren't. > > I've been running this in my personal CI for a little while now and I'm > finding it's pretty marginal for the 45 second default timeout in > kselftest on some platforms, especially BeagleBone Black though it's not > just that. BBB is both slow and has a comprehensive DT which won't help > matters, there's 253 devices. > > I'm running it from nfsroot which is going to be part of the problem but > shouldn't be too bad since we're mainly dealing with proc and sysfs and > hopefully mostly running cached binaries, I'm also using a serial > console to get the output which is going to add overhead especially with > a large number odevices with length names. I'm not sure what the best > solution is here - a quick glance at the code doesn't ring any alarm > bells for me, this may just be a reasonable runtime for the test. Thanks for reporting this. I've experimented a bit and was able to find an effective optimization and CC'ed it to you [1]. Hopefully it is as effective for your board and setup as it is for mine. Let me know there. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected] Thanks, NÃcolas