Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> writes: > On 10/29/18 6:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 27 October 2018 at 12:04, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: >>> On 10/26/18 3:12 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> Hi Guenter; there's a proposal here to deprecate (and eventually >>>> remove) the 'collie' board (strongarm) from QEMU. Is that one of >>>> the ones you're currently using in your automated testing of Linux >>>> kernels on QEMU? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. I can run the test with older versions of qemu, so it is ok for me >>> if it is removed (as long as that removal is not backported). >> >> Mmm, but if we have an active user who's testing them then they >> probably shouldn't be in the frontline of boards to remove. >> Which other boards do you test with mainline QEMU? >> > > For arm: > > akita > ast2500-evb > beagle > beaglexm > borzoi > collie > cubieboard > imx25-pdk > integratorcp > kzm > mainstone > midway > mps2-an385 > overo > palmetto-bmc > raspi2 > realview-eb > realview-eb-mpcore > realview-pb-a8 > realview-pbx-a9 > romulus-bmc > sabrelite > smdkc210 > spitz > terrier > tosa > versatileab > versatilepb > vexpress-a15 > vexpress-a15-a7 > vexpress-a9 > witherspoon-bmc > xilinx-zynq-a9 > z2 > > Though not all of them are supported by upstream qemu. For some of them I > carry local patches, > for others I use out-of-tree versions of qemu (beagle/beaglexm).
Would it be possible to get useful parts of your automated testing into upstream QEMU's CI? I'm asking because I think we should require at least a smoke test in CI for all machine types, and drop the ones that lack it. Not today, but in the not-too-distant future.
