Hi Jerome,
On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Jerome Forissier
<jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> When DSA_SANDBOX is not set, the sandbox tests fail as follows:
>
> $ ./test/py/test.py --build-dir=$(pwd) -k bootdev_test_any
> [...]
> Scanning for bootflows with label '9'
> [...]
> Cannot find '9' (err=-19)
>
> This is due to the device list containing two less entries than
> expected. Therefore, look for label '7' when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled.
>
> The actual use case is NET_LWIP=y (to be introduced in later patches)
> which implies DSA_SANDBOX=n for the time being.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org>
> ---
> test/boot/bootflow.c | 7 +++++--
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> index 6ad63afe90a..c440b8eb778 100644
> --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c
> +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> @@ -109,9 +109,12 @@ static int bootflow_cmd_label(struct unit_test_state
> *uts)
> * 8 [ ] OK mmc mmc2.bootdev
> * 9 [ + ] OK mmc mmc1.bootdev
> * a [ ] OK mmc mmc0.bootdev
> + *
> + * However with CONFIG_DSA_SANDBOX=n we have two less (dsa-test@0 and
> + * dsa-test@1).
> */
> - ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));
> - ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");
Shouldn't this under and #ifdef, IS_ENABLED etc?
> + ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 7", 0));
> + ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '7'");
> ut_assert_skip_to_line("(1 bootflow, 1 valid)");
>
> ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 0", 0));
> --
> 2.40.1
>
