Re: [RFC PATCH] tests/qtest: don't step clock at start of npcm7xx periodic IRQ test

[Hao Wu]

On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 6:20 PM Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:

Hao Wu <wuhaotsh@google.com> writes:

> Have you tried that the test can pass with this? If I remember correctly, interrupt won't trigger properly if not advancing the
> timer

Yes but the IRQ has yet to be enabled at this point.

I believe that's the case,  so we should be able to remove this line in the test.

>
> If the test passes it's probably fine to remove that.

Of course.

>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 11:00 PM Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>  Until there are timers enabled the semantics of clock_step_next() will
>  fail. Since d524441a36 (system/qtest: properly feedback results of
>  clock_[step|set]) we will signal a FAIL if time doesn't advance.
>
>  Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>

Reviewed-by: Hao Wu <wuhaotsh@google.com> 

>  ---
>   tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
>  diff --git a/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c b/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c
>  index 58f58c2f71..43711049ca 100644
>  --- a/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c
>  +++ b/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c
>  @@ -465,7 +465,6 @@ static void test_periodic_interrupt(gconstpointer test_data)
>       int i;
>
>       tim_reset(td);
>  -    clock_step_next();
>
>       tim_write_ticr(td, count);
>       tim_write_tcsr(td, CEN | IE | MODE_PERIODIC | PRESCALE(ps));
>  --
>  2.39.5

--
Alex Bennée
Virtualisation Tech Lead @ Linaro