Re: [PATCH v6 3/5] test: add new driver_data load tester

["Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 07:46:27PM +0900, AKASHI Takahiro wrote:
> Luis,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 03:45:35AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > +To test an async call one could do::
> > > > +
> > > > +        echo anything > /lib/firmware/test-driver_data.bin
> > > 
> > > Your current shell script doesn't search for the firmware in
> > > /lib/firmware unless you explicitly specify $FWPATH.
> > 
> > This is true but that is the *test* shell script, and it purposely avoids the
> > existing firmware path to avoid overriding dummy test files on the production
> > path. So the above still stands as it is not using the test shell script
> > driver_data.sh.
> > 
> > I'll add a note:
> > 
> > """
> > Note that driver_data.sh uses its own temporary custom path for creating and    
> > looking for driver data files, it does this to not overwrite any production     
> > files you might have which may share the same names used by the test shell      
> > script driver_data.sh. If you are not using the driver_data.sh script your      
> > default path will be used. 
> > """
> 
> That looks fine, but I think we'd better change the line:
> 
> > > > +        echo anything > /lib/firmware/test-driver_data.bin
> 
> since it is just incorrect as far as driver_data.sh goes.

But that is accurate, given the default file we search for on test_driver_data.c
is test-driver_data.bin. It also does not create a conflict to overwrite a file
used on driver_data.sh as driver_data.sh uses a custom path. I think the note
above on custom path is sufficient for the developer or user to be aware of
the fact the driver_data.sh does it own thing, and that the example is just a
manual test case.

What do you mean by that its incorrect ?

  Luis