On 17 April 2012 02:16, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On 04/16/2012 05:54 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Yuck! Nack, this is way too invasive. Testing frameworks >> shouldn't require random pointless changes to every board >> model. > > I think the issue is that all of these machines mandate a -kernel option. > qtest doesn't care if you pass a -kernel but requiring a kernel in order to > test a device sucks especially if you don't possess the toolchain to build > such a kernel.
Just testing a device shouldn't require running a particular board model either, of course. > I think we should probably refactor the boards to do something more useful > if a kernel isn't specified verses just buggering out. I don't inherently object if you can define something that's genuinely more useful. I'm not sure "start the CPU and have it execute through zeroed out RAM so the user gets no indication they've forgotten something" really counts, though... -- PMM
