Hi Jerome,
On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 06:01, Jerome Forissier
<jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/4/24 11:37, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:46, Jerome Forissier
> > <jerome.foriss...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/4/24 08:55, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >> In theory yes, but we can avoid the conditional by using index 7 which is
> >> always
> >> valid, i.e., in all configurations we have at least 7 devices (even 8
> >> actually).
> >
> > Ok, but I *think* Simon was trying to match the exact out put here,
> > not 'at least 7'.
> >
> > I think we are better off being strict on this test
>
> No because there are 10 entries according to the comment ("a" hex being
> mmc0.bootdev). Simon, what do you suggest?
I don't think this is a huge deal.
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
BTW, 'fewer', not 'less', if you can count them
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jerome
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Ilias
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> + 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
> >>>>
