On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:10:47PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > On 4.12.2017 18:14, Stephen Warren wrote: > > On 12/04/2017 08:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>> On 4.12.2017 15:03, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>> On 1.12.2017 23:44, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:07:54AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>>>>> On 12/01/2017 08:19 AM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 1.12.2017 16:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Simek wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Qemu for arm32/arm64 has a problem with time setup. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be preferable to fix the root cause? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Definitely that would be the best and IIRC I have tried to > >>>>>>>> convince our > >>>>>>>> qemu guy to do that but they have never done that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What is the exact failure condition? Is it simply that the test > >>>>>>> is still > >>>>>>> slightly too strict about which delays it accepts, or is sleep > >>>>>>> outright > >>>>>>> broken? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You can use command-line option -k to avoid some tests. For > >>>>>>> example "-k not > >>>>>>> sleep". That way, we don't have to hard-code the dependency into > >>>>>>> the test > >>>>>>> source. Depending on the root cause (issue in U-Boot, or issue in > >>>>>>> just your > >>>>>>> local version of qemu, or something that will never work) this > >>>>>>> might be > >>>>>>> better? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Even with the most recent relaxing of the sleep test requirements, > >>>>>> I can > >>>>>> still (depending on overall system load) have 'sleep' take too > >>>>>> long, on > >>>>>> QEMU. I think it might have been half a second slow, but I don't > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> the log handy anymore. Both locally and in travis we -k not sleep > >>>>>> all > >>>>>> of the qemu instances. > >>>>> > >>>>> ok. By locally do you mean just using -k not sleep? > >>>> > >>>> Yes, I have that in my CI scripts and similar. > >>> > >>> Wouldn't be easier to keep this in uboot-test-hooks repo with other > >>> target setting? > >> > >> Or do as you did did and mark the tests as not allowed for qemu, yes. > >> > >>> What we are trying to do is that our testing group will run these tests > >>> for me that's why it is just easier for me to change local > >>> uboot-test-hooks repo instead of communicate with them what -k not XXX > >>> parameters to add to certain scripts. > >>> > >>> It means in loop they will just run all tests on qemu, local targets and > >>> in boardfarm. It is probably not big deal to tell them to add -k not > >>> sleep for all qemu runs but I know that for some i2c testing qemu > >>> doesn't emulate these devices that's why these tests fails. And the > >>> amount of tests which we shouldn't run on qemu will probably grow. > >> > >> Well, I'm still open to possibly tweaking the allowed variance in the > >> sleep test. OTOH, if we just say "no QEMU" here, we can then go back to > >> "sleep should be pretty darn accurate on HW" for the test too, and > >> perhaps that's best. > > > > The fundamental problem of "over-sleeping" due to host system load/.. > > exists with all boards. There's nothing specific to qemu here except > > that running U-Boot on qemu on the host rather than on separate HW might > > more easily trigger the "high load on the host" condition; I see the > > issue now and then and manually retry that test, although that is a bit > > annoying. > > > > The original test was mostly intended to make sure that e U-Boot clock > > didn't run at a significantly different rate to the host, since I had > > seen that issue during development of some board support or as a > > regression sometime. Perhaps the definition of "significantly different" > > should be more like "1/2 rate or twice rate or more" rather than "off by > > a small fraction of a second". That might avoid so many false positives. > > We had this issue with silicon v1 and having accurate sleep measuring is > definitely good thing to have (Probably make sense to enable margin > setup via variable anyway). > > But still I would extend this to more wider discussion how to disable > just one particular test case which is verified that it is broken on > certain target/target configuration. > Using -k not XXX option is possible but as I said before it is not ideal > to keep track of these problematic tests in two locations and share this > between two teams. > > Better would be to add to u_boot_boardenv...py file line like this > skip_test_sleep = True > > Which would be parsed and test won't run for specific board/configuration. > The same logic can be generic that user can add for example > skip_test_net_dhcp = True > to skip dhcp test for whatever reason. > > Then for travis-ci we can just put these lines to py/travis-ci/. > > What do you think?
Ah, good idea! We have a few cases like this already, so how about env__sleep_accurate, default it to True and let the board files set it to false, and have test_sleep check for and use that? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
