On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 13:57:06 +0100 Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Sep 2019 at 09:58, Shameer Kolothum > <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > > This patch is in preparation for adding numamem and memhp tests > > to arm/virt board so that 'make check' is happy. This may not > > be required once the scripts are run and new tables are > > generated with ".numamem" and ".memhp" extensions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shameer Kolothum <shameerali.kolothum.th...@huawei.com> > > --- > > I am not sure this is the right way to do this. But without this, when > > the numamem and memhp tests are added, you will get, > > > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT.numamem' > > Looking for expected file 'tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT' > > ** > > ERROR:tests/bios-tables-test.c:327:load_expected_aml: assertion failed: > > (exp_sdt.aml_file) > > > > --- > > tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT | Bin 0 -> 48 bytes > > tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT | Bin 0 -> 224 bytes > > 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SLIT > > create mode 100644 tests/data/acpi/virt/SRAT > > Do the tests pass with this patch and without the > patch that adds the tests? (That is, can we keep the > two patches separate without breaking bisection, or > do we need to squash them together?) > > I'll leave it to somebody who understands the ACPI > tests stuff to answer whether there's a better way to I'd squash this patch into 11/11 test case, CCing Michael (since he's the one who applies ACPI patches) > do this. > > thanks > -- PMM >
