On Wed, Nov 15, 2023 at 12:08:38PM +0530, Love Kumar wrote: > Add below test cases for i2c commands: > i2c_bus - To show i2c bus info, > i2c_dev - To set or show the current bus, > i2c_probe - To probe the i2c device, > i2c_eeprom - To test i2c eeprom device, > i2c_probe_all_buses - To list down all the buses and probes it > > Signed-off-by: Love Kumar <love.ku...@amd.com> > --- > test/py/tests/test_i2c.py | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 107 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 test/py/tests/test_i2c.py
I'm mostly happy with this test. I enabled it for one of my platforms
with an EEPROM and:
> +@pytest.mark.buildconfigspec("cmd_i2c")
> +def test_i2c_eeprom(u_boot_console):
> + f = u_boot_console.config.env.get("env__i2c_eeprom_device_test", None)
> + if not f:
> + pytest.skip("No I2C eeprom to test!")
> +
> + bus = f.get("bus", 0)
> + if bus < 0:
> + pytest.fail("No bus specified via env__i2c_eeprom_device_test!")
> +
> + addr = f.get("eeprom_addr", -1)
> + if addr < 0:
> + pytest.fail("No eeprom address specified via
> env__i2c_eeprom_device_test!")
> +
> + # Enable i2c mux bridge
> + u_boot_console.run_command("i2c dev %x" % bus)
> + u_boot_console.run_command("i2c probe")
> + val_int = random.randint(0, 255)
> + value = format(val_int, "02x")
> + u_boot_console.run_command("i2c mw %x 0 %x 5" % (addr, val_int))
> + expected_response = f"0000: {value} {value} {value} {value} {value} "
> + response = u_boot_console.run_command("i2c md %x 0 5" % addr)
> + assert expected_response in response
So this is a destructive test, yes? That's fine for QEMU but on real
hardware that's a problem. Doubly so since I need the contents to be
correct as they already are. Can we change this such that we probe the
eeprom and then read back the configured correct value instead?
--
Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
