Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

tests: adc_api: Use new DT_LABEL macro for getting device name #24623

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 23, 2020

Conversation

galak
Copy link
Collaborator

@galak galak commented Apr 22, 2020

Replace dts_fixup.h based DT_ADC_0_NAME defines with DT_LABEL as we
phase out dts_fixup.h

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala kumar.gala@linaro.org

Replace dts_fixup.h based DT_ADC_0_NAME defines with DT_LABEL as we
phase out dts_fixup.h

Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@linaro.org>
@galak galak requested a review from nashif as a code owner April 22, 2020 22:09
@zephyrbot zephyrbot added the area: Tests Issues related to a particular existing or missing test label Apr 22, 2020
Copy link
Member

@nandojve nandojve left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Atmel SAM

@nandojve nandojve mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2020
61 tasks
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@
#elif defined(CONFIG_BOARD_NRF51DK_NRF51422)

#include <hal/nrf_adc.h>
#define ADC_DEVICE_NAME DT_ADC_0_NAME
#define ADC_DEVICE_NAME DT_LABEL(DT_INST(0, nordic_nrf_adc))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How can we be sure that DT_INST(0, nordic_nrf_adc) is ADC_0? Shouldn't we use DT_NODELABEL() here?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm guessing in this case its know that ADC is a singleton, since the driver uses DT_INST.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It was more of a general comment to the conversions performed in this PR. Some of the coversions convert from ADC_1 to DT_INST(0, ...).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If the driver is multi-instance at all, the INST ordering should be assumed to be basically random, so this is indeed an issue in general (though for this particular line of source it's a singleton).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@mbolivar-nordic I might have been a bit too trigger-happy with this one. @henrikbrixandersen please feel free to continue the conversation here and then we can create a separate PR if necessary to tweak whatever is needed.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I personally think the INST conversions should be removed and replaced with either NODELABEL or ALIAS.

Edit: in cases where ambiguity is possible, not this particular line

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree.

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'd prefer NODELABEL

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

or in this case, for a lot of these PATH would make sense since they are board specific ifdefs.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Either NODELABEL or PATH seems fine as way to resolve this issue

@carlescufi carlescufi merged commit 0cfbd9a into zephyrproject-rtos:master Apr 23, 2020
@galak galak deleted the dt-tests-adc branch April 24, 2020 11:38
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
area: Tests Issues related to a particular existing or missing test
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

8 participants