On 11/1/22 00:52, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 15:58, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/31/22 20:27, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sat, 29 Oct 2022 at 20:56, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/30/22 02:43, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 at 10:41, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/27/22 17:22, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 00:13, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
On 10/26/22 01:35, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 at 03:21, Heinrich Schuchardt
<heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote:
We may enter the command line interface in a state where on the remote
console the cursor is not shown. Send an escape sequence to enable it.
Signed-off-by: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com>
---
common/main.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/common/main.c b/common/main.c
index 682f3359ea..4e7e7b17d6 100644
--- a/common/main.c
+++ b/common/main.c
@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@
/* #define DEBUG */
#include <common.h>
+#include <ansi.h>
#include <autoboot.h>
#include <bootstage.h>
#include <cli.h>
@@ -66,6 +67,9 @@ void main_loop(void)
autoboot_command(s);
+ if (!CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_VIDEO) || CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(VIDEO_ANSI))
+ printf(ANSI_CURSOR_SHOW "\n");
Could we create a library which emits these codes? Like ansi_cursor_show() ?
The question is not if we could but if we should.
Up to now we tried to call printf() only once where ANSI_* is only one
part of the output string.
E.g. cmd/eficonfig.c:415:
printf(ANSI_CLEAR_CONSOLE
ANSI_CURSOR_POSITION
ANSI_CURSOR_SHOW, 1, 1);
This minimizes the number of call library calls but may not be very elegant.
Creating a library function for ANSI_CURSOR_SHOW alone does not make
much sense to me. Should you want to convert our code base from using
ANSI_* to library functions this should cover the whole code base.
So I think we should let this patch pass as it solves a current problem
and leave creating a ANSI_* function library to a separate exercise.
Then we should add this to the serial API...what we have here is quite
bizarre in a way, since it outputs escape characters as the default
for U-Boot. Mostly we don't need it.
So add a set_cursor_visible() method to the serial API and allow it to
be controlled via platform data in the serial driver.
I have no clue which platform data you might be thinking of.
It is also not my intention to eject the escape sequence whenever a
serial console is probed.
Using serial_puts() in this patch instead of printf() would help to
avoid the CONFIG dependency.
Here's what should happen:
1. ANSI codes should not appear in logs or on CI (this is currently a
problem with EFI tests)
A program outputting different things in continuous integration then in
real live does not provide realistic testing.
It is the CI that has to adapt not the program under test.
Which logs are you talking about?
2. We cannot show an ANSI code on boot by default, since that puts
ctrl characters into every start-up of U-Boot
Why would that be a problem?
So I think my suggestion makes sense. See drivers/serial/sandbox.c and
have a way of calling isatty() to check the terminal type (with a
cmdline flag to override it, see -t for example). Then we can get the
correct behaviour.
isatty() is not a U-Boot function. So it is irrelevant in this context.
You cannot detect if a serial console understands ANSI sequences without
sending any.
NAK
Please try a little harder to understand my POV above.
I don't understand what your point of view as you did not answer my
question.
The only case of logs being written in a production U-Boot is given by
CONGIG_LOG_SYSLOG=y which is not affected by the patch. So no clue what
logs you refer to.
If you run the tests (e.g. make check) and get a failure you can see
the output from them on the console. At the moment some tests clear
the console, change colour and all sorts of things. That is not good
behaviour. Can you see that?
None of the tests in lib/efi_selftests clears the screen. To provide
better readability they use colored output which should not pose any
problem if your console in ANSI enabled. To view logs with ANSI colors
correctly displayed just use the 'less -rf' command.
For the bootmenu there is a test that invokes the bootmenu command which
clears the screen. This is unavoidable for testing. Inside the CI that
does not cause problems bug you may dislike it when running the tests
manually. We could think of adding some property to the test to allow
you to exclude the test more easily.
Concerning CI it is clear that the CI has to handle ANSI sequences in
the U-Boot output sensibly. The idea of U-Boot producing different
output running in CI than outside CI would contradict the purpose of the CI.
Have you actually looked at the CI output? I am attaching it at the
end of this email so you can see it.
I further have no clue what problem you face with the output of the EFI
unit tests. Could you, please, be more specific.
That is a whole other topic. We definitely need more C tests and fewer
of these large Python end-to-end tests.
But for now, all I am saying is that ANSI characters should not be
output in CI. For sandbox they can be output but only if sending to a
terminal, or specifically enabled with a flag. Tests that clear the
console or output thousands of lines of gibberish output are not
acceptable in my book.
In the log I see no gibberish but the actual screen output. If you think
the output is too verbose, we must find a way to exclude the test.
Best regards
Heinrich
Regards,
Simon
