test: gpio: include in build, and fixup bitrot

Commit ebaa3d053e5 ("test: fix CONFIG_ACPIGEN dependencies"), which
got into v2022.10-rc1, accidentally left out a $
before (CONFIG_DM_GPIO), with the effect that test/dm/gpio.c has not
been built for three years.

Unsurprisingly, the code in there has bit-rotted.

- There's a missing ; causing plain build fail.

  That code was added in 9bf87e256c2 ("test: dm: update test for
  open-drain/open-source emulation in gpio-uclass"), which was part of
  v2020.07-rc3, i.e. long before the commit causing gpio.c to not be
  built at all. It did build at that time, but also, the missing
  semicolon wasn't found when fa847bb409d ("test: Wrap assert macros
  in ({ ... }) and fix missing semicolons") happened in 2023.

- Commit 592b6f394ae ("led: add function naming option from linux")
  bumped sandbox,gpio-count for bank gpio_a in test.dts to 25, but
  didn't update the expected global gpio numbers accordingly.

- The "lookup by label" test likely worked when it was added, but then I
  inadvertently broke it when I noticed that dm_gpio_lookup_label()
  seemed to be broken in commit 10e66449d7e ("gpio-uclass: fix gpio
  lookup by label") - which landed in v2023.01-rc1, so after gpio.c
  was no longer being built.

  The "label" (which is a u-boot concept) that a "hogged gpio" gets is
  <gpio hog node name>.gpio-hog, which is why it used to work with the
  strncmp() but doesn't with strcmp().

  We can either revert 10e66449d7e or append the ".gpio-hog" suffix as
  done below. I don't really have a dog in that race; when I did
  10e66449d7e, it was because I thought the "lookup by label" was
  actually about the standardized gpio-line-names property, but then I
  learnt it was not, so is not at all useful to me.

- The leak check now fails.

  Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c
  test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a95b0 (2790832), got 0x2a9650 (2790992)
  test/dm/gpio.c:328, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1)
  Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c (flat tree)
  test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a9650 (2790992), got 0x2a9700 (2791168)
  test/dm/gpio.c:328, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1)

  And it fails with the same differences (160/176) even if I
  remove the three lines that actually exercise any of the gpio code,
  i.e. make the whole function amount to

    ut_assertok(dm_leak_check_end(uts));

  Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c
  test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a95b0 (2790832), got 0x2a9650 (2790992)
  test/dm/gpio.c:325, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1)
  Test: gpio_leak: gpio.c (flat tree)
  test/dm/core.c:112, dm_leak_check_end(): uts->start.uordblks == end.uordblks: Expected 0x2a9650 (2790992), got 0x2a9700 (2791168)
  test/dm/gpio.c:325, dm_test_gpio_leak(): 0 == dm_leak_check_end(uts): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1)

  So I suspect that the leak is somewhere in the test framework
  setup/teardown code - dm_leack_check_end() isn't really used
  anywhere else except in a dm/core test. Bisecting to figure out
  where that was introduced is somewhat of a hassle because of the
  other bitrot, and because of the SWIG failure that makes it very
  hard to build older U-Boots.

  So since it's better to have most of the gpio tests actually
  working instead of leaving all of gpio.c as dead code, #if 0 that
  part out and leave it as an archeological exercise.

Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <ravi@prevas.dk>
Reviewed-by: Heiko Schocher <hs@nabladev.com>

test/dm/Makefile

@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ ifeq ($(CONFIG_ACPIGEN),y)
 obj-y += acpi.o
 obj-y += acpigen.o
 obj-y += acpi_dp.o
-obj-(CONFIG_DM_GPIO) += gpio.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_DM_GPIO) += gpio.o
 obj-y += irq.o
 endif
 obj-$(CONFIG_ADC) += adc.o

test/dm/gpio.c

@@ -29,14 +29,14 @@ static int dm_test_gpio(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 
 	/*
 	 * We expect to get 4 banks. One is anonymous (just numbered) and
-	 * comes from plat. The other are named a (20 gpios),
+	 * comes from plat. The other are named a (25 gpios),
 	 * b (10 gpios) and c (10 gpios) and come from the device tree. See
 	 * test/dm/test.dts.
 	 */
 	ut_assertok(gpio_lookup_name("b4", &dev, &offset, &gpio));
 	ut_asserteq_str(dev->name, "extra-gpios");
 	ut_asserteq(4, offset);
-	ut_asserteq(CONFIG_SANDBOX_GPIO_COUNT + 20 + 4, gpio);
+	ut_asserteq(CONFIG_SANDBOX_GPIO_COUNT + 25 + 4, gpio);
 
 	name = gpio_get_bank_info(dev, &offset_count);
 	ut_asserteq_str("b", name);
@@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int dm_test_gpio(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 
 	name = gpio_get_bank_info(dev, &offset_count);
 	ut_asserteq_str("a", name);
-	ut_asserteq(20, offset_count);
+	ut_asserteq(25, offset_count);
 
 	/* add gpio hog tests */
 	ut_assertok(gpio_hog_lookup_name("hog_input_active_low", &desc));
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static int dm_test_gpio(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 	ut_asserteq(0, dm_gpio_get_value(desc));
 
 	/* Check if lookup for labels work */
-	ut_assertok(gpio_lookup_name("hog_input_active_low", &dev, &offset,
+	ut_assertok(gpio_lookup_name("hog_input_active_low.gpio-hog", &dev, &offset,
 				     &gpio));
 	ut_asserteq_str(dev->name, "base-gpios");
 	ut_asserteq(10, offset);
@@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ static int dm_test_gpio_opendrain_opensource(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 	ut_asserteq_str("pinmux-gpios", gpio_c->name);
 
 	ut_asserteq(8, gpio_request_list_by_name(dev, "test3-gpios", desc_list,
-						 ARRAY_SIZE(desc_list), 0))
+						 ARRAY_SIZE(desc_list), 0));
 
 	ut_asserteq(true, !!device_active(gpio_c));
 	ut_asserteq_ptr(gpio_c, desc_list[0].dev);
@@ -309,6 +309,8 @@ static int dm_test_gpio_copy(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 DM_TEST(dm_test_gpio_copy, UTF_SCAN_PDATA | UTF_SCAN_FDT);
 
 /* Test that we don't leak memory with GPIOs */
+/* Disabled for now as there seems to be a leak in the test framework itself. */
+#if 0
 static int dm_test_gpio_leak(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 {
 	ut_assertok(dm_test_gpio(uts));
@@ -319,6 +321,7 @@ static int dm_test_gpio_leak(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 	return 0;
 }
 DM_TEST(dm_test_gpio_leak, UTF_SCAN_PDATA | UTF_SCAN_FDT);
+#endif
 
 /* Test that we can find GPIOs using phandles */
 static int dm_test_gpio_phandles(struct unit_test_state *uts)