On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 17:27:26 +0800
Bibo Mao <maob...@loongson.cn> wrote:
> Add basic ACPI table test case for LoongArch64.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao <maob...@loongson.cn>
> ---
> tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> index 0a333ec435..008d7a0497 100644
> --- a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> @@ -2420,6 +2420,59 @@ static void test_acpi_aarch64_virt_oem_fields(void)
> g_free(args);
> }
>
> +#define LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data) \
> + test_data data = { \
> + .machine = "virt", \
> + .arch = "loongarch64", \
> + .tcg_only = true, \
> + .uefi_fl1 = "pc-bios/edk2-loongarch64-code.fd", \
> + .uefi_fl2 = "pc-bios/edk2-loongarch64-vars.fd", \
> + .cd = "tests/data/uefi-boot-images/" \
> + "bios-tables-test.loongarch64.iso.qcow2", \
> + .ram_start = 0, \
> + .scan_len = 128ULL * 1024 * 1024, \
while it consistent with other test, we should switch to using MiB macro
so I'd like to ask
* 1st convert all similar places in bios-tables-test.c 'x * MiB' style
* fix up this patch to use that as well
> + }
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt(void)
> +{
> + LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> + test_acpi_one("-cpu la464 ", &data);
> + free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_topology(void)
> +{
> + LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> + data.variant = ".topology";
> + test_acpi_one("-cpu la464 -smp sockets=1,cores=4,threads=2", &data);
> + free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem(void)
> +{
> + LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> + data.variant = ".numamem";
> + test_acpi_one(" -cpu la464 -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram0,size=128M"
> + " -numa node,memdev=ram0", &data);
> + free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_memhp(void)
> +{
> + LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> + data.variant = ".memhp";
> + test_acpi_one(" -cpu la464 -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G"
> + " -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram0,size=64M"
> + " -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram1,size=64M"
> + " -numa node,memdev=ram0 -numa node,memdev=ram1"
> + " -numa dist,src=0,dst=1,val=21",
I'd test numa specific stuff in test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem()
and simplify this test case.
> + &data);
> + free_test_data(&data);
> +}
>
> int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> @@ -2593,6 +2646,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
> qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/numamem",
> test_acpi_riscv64_virt_tcg_numamem);
> }
> + } else if (strcmp(arch, "loongarch64") == 0) {
> + if (has_tcg && qtest_has_device("virtio-blk-pci")) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is it necessary?
if yes, then add explanation to commit message, why it's need.
> + qtest_add_func("acpi/virt", test_acpi_loongarch64_virt);
> + qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/topology",
> + test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_topology);
> + qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/numamem",
> + test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem);
> + qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/memhp",
> test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_memhp);
> + }
> }
> ret = g_test_run();
> boot_sector_cleanup(disk);
