On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt <xypron.g...@gmx.de> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > > > > > <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> Add expected_reset optional argument to > > > > >> ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > > > > >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and > > > > >> ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > > > > >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > > > > >> boot logo before prompt correctly. > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> > > > > >> --- > > > > >> Changes in v5: > > > > >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to > > > > >> clarify > > > > >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > > > > >> --- > > > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 > > > > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > > > > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back? > > > > > > > > Dear Simon, > > > > > > > > The discussion is in > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820061065514578.stgit@localhost/ > > > > > > > > You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see > > > > the reset driver." > > > > > > > > We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in > > > > the referenced thread. > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of > > > Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later. > > > > Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and > > then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware? > > Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox > tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much > want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset > driver. > > While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs > are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
