Hi Tom,
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 at 07:32, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 07:16:08AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Heiko,
> >
> > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Heiko Schocher <h...@denx.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > On 27.02.25 20:26, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Tom,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 10:20, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:27:33AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 07:35, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:56:03PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 06:59, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:54:13AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 09:06, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:57:34AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 07:53, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:49:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 17:55, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:01:40PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 08:11, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:09:23AM -0700, Simon Glass
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Tom,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 10:52, Tom Rini
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 01:44:13PM -0700, Simon Glass
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now that U-Boot can boot this quickly, using kvm, add a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test that the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installer starts up correctly.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Use the qemu-x86_64 board in the SJG lab.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Changes in v2:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Add more patches to support booting with kvm
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Add new patch with a test for booting Ubuntu 24.04
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .gitlab-ci.yml | 5 ++++
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/py/tests/test_distro.py | 53
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> create mode 100644 test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 8c49d5b0a79..ec799e97c10 100644
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -745,3 +745,8 @@ zybo:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variables:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ROLE: zybo
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<: *lab_dfn
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +qemu-x86_64:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + variables:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ROLE: qemu-x86_64
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + <<: *lab_dfn
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why this is in your lab stanza, rather than
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test.py QEMU stanza.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you wanting to add the Ubuntu image into CI? It is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite large.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we're going to be able to run it on N platforms, yes,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we need to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think of a good way to cache the download. There's not a
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reason we can't run the stock Ubuntu RISC-V image on the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> two sifive
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> targets and also qemu-riscv64, is there?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we can do that. It is pretty simple to set up in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Labgrid and it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't require all the runners to download a much larger
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> image, etc.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't quite understand why it's under "labgrid". These are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> generic CI
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tests. Now maybe we need to, in both Gitlab and Azure, add
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> some logic so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that certain longer or possibly destructive tests are only
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> run on tagged
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> releases or as requested rather than every time, as it will
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> take longer.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> But pretty much every platform under the qemu target list
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> should be able
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> to Just Boot an off the shelf OS distribution is my point.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Sure, and I'm not suggesting we shouldn't do that as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b/test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 00000000000..51eec45cecc
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Copyright 2025 Canonical Ltd.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Written by Simon Glass <simon.gl...@canonical.com>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +import pytest
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +DOWN = '\x1b\x5b\x42\x0d'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Enable early console so that the test can see if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something goes wrong
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +CONSOLE = 'earlycon=uart8250,io,0x3f8
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> console=uart8250,io,0x3f8'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +@pytest.mark.boardspec('qemu-x86_64')
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +@pytest.mark.role('qemu-x86_64')
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +def test_distro(ubman):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + """Test that of-platdata can be generated and used
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in sandbox"""
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + with ubman.log.section('boot'):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.run_command('boot',
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait_for_prompt=False)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + with ubman.log.section('Grub'):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Wait for grub to come up and offset a menu
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.p.expect(['Try or Install Ubuntu'])
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Press 'e' to edit the command line
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.run_command('e', wait_for_prompt=False,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> send_nl=False)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Wait until we see the editor appear
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.p.expect(['/casper/initrd'])
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Go down to the 'linux' line
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.send(DOWN * 3)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Go to end of line
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.ctrl('E')
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Backspace to remove 'quiet splash'
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.send('\b' * len('quiet splash'))
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Send our noisy console
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.send(CONSOLE)
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Tell grub to boot
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.ctrl('X')
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.p.expect(['Booting a command list'])
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + with ubman.log.section('Linux'):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Linux should start immediately
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.p.expect(['Linux version'])
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + with ubman.log.section('Ubuntu'):
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + # Shortly later, we should see this banner
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.p.expect(['Welcome to .*Ubuntu 24.04.1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LTS.*!'])
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + ubman.restart_uboot()
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this seems very inflexible. Please see
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/py/tests/test_net_boot.py for an example of how to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have this be
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurable and work on arbitrary platforms. What I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume is tricky is
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the "role" part here is where you have a special
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk image being
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> passed. That too could be dealt with in
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u-boot-test-hooks in a few ways,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and the images pre-fetched to the CI container. And if
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this was
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurable similar to the example I noted above, it
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could check real
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hardware too.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That wasn't the reaction I expected.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is inflexible, but it is a starting point. Isn't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it better
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than what we have today?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is your inflexible boot an OS test better than the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flexible boot an OS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> test that we have today? No, it's not.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't even know about it, or perhaps I forgot.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe I mentioned it every time you've said we should
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> have an OS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> test, so yes, I guess you forgot.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Well it was only added in May last year and it relies on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> board config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> which I don't have...although I see that you have now posted
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> yours.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, it was added not quite a year ago, and is documented
> > > >>>>>>>>>> within the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> test, like most tests that rely on the real platform.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> And do we need better documentation for test? Yes.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> +1
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I'll note that I did my bit!
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps this relates to getting the labgrid config
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> published and
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> figuring out how to pass info from Labgrid to tests.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to generalise this test to work on at least
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one real
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> board, preferably one that doesn't use grub.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. The test we have today does that, if you check for the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Welcome to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..." string instead of the kernel has booted string. It
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> also does
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> netboot rather than run default bootcmd. But that's an
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> easy enough test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to write up. The only thing stopping me from doing that
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now is I
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to find a board in the lab where we installed an OS
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to eMMC and not
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> SD card (some lab sd-mux issues).
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK. Labgrid has a 'features' thing which you can attach to
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> targets, so
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I should be able to use that to indicate that Ubuntu,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Debian, Armbian,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> etc. are available.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> OK, but that sounds like the opposite direction. These are
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> generic tests
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> that can run in any / all of the labs, not just your labgrid
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> configuration. AMD has been contributing tests that run on
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> hardware for
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> example.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> That's great, the more tests we have the better. But those
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> tests can't
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and don't run in CI, whereas mine can and do.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> AFAICT they're running on AMD's CI. They run on my CI. They
> > > >>>>>>>>>> don't run on
> > > >>>>>>>>>> *your* lab because you took things, intentionally, in a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> direction to
> > > >>>>>>>>>> minimize using u-boot-test-hooks and our existing per-board
> > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration infrastructure.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> When I look at CI all I see is my lab. Which CI are you
> > > >>>>>>>>> referring to
> > > >>>>>>>>> and how can I access it?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I'll point you at the notes for the first call we had recently:
> > > >>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250128171923.GQ1233568@bill-the-cat/
> > > >>>>>>>> and note that there are many labs doing testing on / with U-Boot.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> That's all good, but it isn't as good as having the lab in gitlab.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Strongly disagree. Especially since having it in the mainline
> > > >>>>>> gitlab
> > > >>>>>> isn't feasible.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Here I would like to make a case for moving to using Labgrid
> > > >>>>>>>>> across
> > > >>>>>>>>> the board, but unfortunately the project struggles to review
> > > >>>>>>>>> PRs, so
> > > >>>>>>>>> it's probably not a good idea.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> It would also be counter to the feedback from the U-Boot
> > > >>>>>>>> community about
> > > >>>>>>>> making it easier to contribute testing results from additional
> > > >>>>>>>> labs.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> I really don't think the test hooks are a good setup, though. It
> > > >>>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>> OK-ish for small labs, but it is so fiddly to use that I wrote a
> > > >>>>>>> tool
> > > >>>>>>> (Labman) to deal with all the confusion.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Yes, I don't know how hard you evaluated all of the then-current
> > > >>>>>> lab
> > > >>>>>> management tooling and wrote your own.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Labgrid (which you suggested I use for my lab, if you recall),
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Yes, and I think you forgot the aim was to make it easy to show
> > > >>>>>> all of
> > > >>>>>> the existing Labgrid based labs that do Linux kernel testing they
> > > >>>>>> could
> > > >>>>>> easily add U-Boot to the mix. I've been trying to get feedback from
> > > >>>>>> other people with existing labgrid setups to look at what you've
> > > >>>>>> done.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> provides for two yaml configuration files so that everything is
> > > >>>>>>> in one
> > > >>>>>>> place. Apart from its primitive support for USB hubs, it is much
> > > >>>>>>> easier to maintain that dozens of little files all over the palce.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I mean, I looked at what you posted and strongly disagree, but I
> > > >>>>>> think
> > > >>>>>> both cases here are personal preference and not some sort of
> > > >>>>>> objective
> > > >>>>>> and easily evaluated thing.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> We need an 'all of the above' strategy here.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sure. But I still want to see things as reusable as possible.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> What you
> > > >>>>>>>>>> have above is *extremely* board and OS specific and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> non-configurable.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes, agreed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> I
> > > >>>>>>>>>> also don't quite see why it's not a test of autoboot with the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> pre-requisite of an OS being installed.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Ah OK, my test is just for the installer itself. Both are
> > > >>>>>>>>> useful, but
> > > >>>>>>>>> I hope eventually to have the installer run to completion and
> > > >>>>>>>>> then
> > > >>>>>>>>> reboot to check all is well.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> In the spirit of "yes, and.."'ing tests, sure. Ilias pointed me
> > > >>>>>>>> at some
> > > >>>>>>>> testing Linaro has going now that automates I believe it was
> > > >>>>>>>> current
> > > >>>>>>>> Yocto and current U-Boot (+ the pmb patches that've been posted)
> > > >>>>>>>> doing a
> > > >>>>>>>> full install via network in CI. So yes, a Canonical lab might
> > > >>>>>>>> also find
> > > >>>>>>>> it useful to end to end test installing Ubuntu. My own personal
> > > >>>>>>>> dream is
> > > >>>>>>>> that at least some of the existing kernelci labs see the utility
> > > >>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> adding "current U-Boot" as one of the matrix variables they test
> > > >>>>>>>> and not
> > > >>>>>>>> just "U-Boot as delivered by vendor" as a static part of the
> > > >>>>>>>> testing.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> OK.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, having thought about how test/py works a bit, instead of
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> env__net_tftp_bootable_file stuff, we should have code or
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> data which
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> sets up the required test files (on a suitable server) before
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> running
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> the test. That way, all the test code is in one Python file
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> and we
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> don't have to spend ages trying to divine what each test
> > > >>>>>>>>>>> needs.
> > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> That seems like a lot more work than documenting more what we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> have
> > > >>>>>>>>>> today, and I'm not sure of the benefit. Given the contents of
> > > >>>>>>>>>> the pxe
> > > >>>>>>>>>> test, yes, just having those files available to 'cp' in place
> > > >>>>>>>>>> would be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> helpful. But that's not the case for booting a kernel (the FIT
> > > >>>>>>>>>> match
> > > >>>>>>>>>> stuff doesn't work on the TI platforms atm). And if you look
> > > >>>>>>>>>> at the
> > > >>>>>>>>>> config I posted it also includes bootstage configuration. It
> > > >>>>>>>>>> also won't
> > > >>>>>>>>>> work well for the SPI tests, which I'm talking with Love about
> > > >>>>>>>>>> in
> > > >>>>>>>>>> another thread.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes, perhaps, but having self-contained tests would be a win.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> With it's own set of technical and legal challenges /
> > > >>>>>>>> obligations and
> > > >>>>>>>> difficulties depending on what you even mean by "self
> > > >>>>>>>> contained". And
> > > >>>>>>>> how often what's run where, and all sorts of other challenges
> > > >>>>>>>> too.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Given the extreme depth that testing can go to, this is why I'm
> > > >>>>>>>> of the
> > > >>>>>>>> position that we need to document things more and worry less
> > > >>>>>>>> about
> > > >>>>>>>> prepackaged things. For example, making the documentation for the
> > > >>>>>>>> current net based OS boot means that for bringing up a new board
> > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> developer can just drop something in. Whereas if the tests
> > > >>>>>>>> expect a
> > > >>>>>>>> functional OS image that has to also be messed with and is its
> > > >>>>>>>> own
> > > >>>>>>>> challenge.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Yes
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>> In other words, the majority of py/<host>/u_boot_boardenv_
> > > >>>>>>>>>> content is
> > > >>>>>>>>>> configuration details, specific to both the platform / SoC
> > > >>>>>>>>>> first, some
> > > >>>>>>>>>> lab specific details second and drop-in existing 3rd party
> > > >>>>>>>>>> files a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> distant third.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> I think the u-boot-test-hooks was an amazing solution 9 years
> > > >>>>>>>>> ago, but
> > > >>>>>>>>> we have outgrown it. We want people to be able to connect their
> > > >>>>>>>>> lab to
> > > >>>>>>>>> CI (meaning gitlab), so testing is more automated.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> More and more public testing would be great. The notes I linked
> > > >>>>>>>> above
> > > >>>>>>>> explain one of the first problems there being that most
> > > >>>>>>>> companies will
> > > >>>>>>>> not or can not hook a lab to a public CI instance.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well corporate IT is what it is.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> That means that their boards will not be testing in CI, unless
> > > >>>>>>> they do
> > > >>>>>>> it themselves, right?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean here. It's a solved problem for them
> > > >>>>>> (monitor
> > > >>>>>> tree at URL) and something that's been being done since the
> > > >>>>>> beginning
> > > >>>>>> even for U-Boot (it's how the original nvidia lab worked).
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> The next problem, as
> > > >>>>>>>> both of our personal labs show, is that just maintaining the
> > > >>>>>>>> physical
> > > >>>>>>>> lab takes time and resources. I've added Heiko here because I've
> > > >>>>>>>> been
> > > >>>>>>>> talking with him off-list about expanding tbot coverage and
> > > >>>>>>>> plumbing
> > > >>>>>>>> that in to gitlab.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> OK
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> We should move away from relying on maintainers getting around
> > > >>>>>>>>> to
> > > >>>>>>>>> testing patches months after they are sent, when they have
> > > >>>>>>>>> time, but
> > > >>>>>>>>> they don't. Things need to be more automated and I'd encourage
> > > >>>>>>>>> you to
> > > >>>>>>>>> push this as well.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> I have been, and the results I've gotten are that companies are
> > > >>>>>>>> testing
> > > >>>>>>>> things internally but there's not any good way to publish
> > > >>>>>>>> results, and
> > > >>>>>>>> that's the kind of framework we're entirely missing.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> If you like, but from my side, I like to see the results in
> > > >>>>>>> gitlab.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Depends on what you mean by gitlab. I assume you mean "triggered
> > > >>>>>> by a
> > > >>>>>> push and visible in the main pipeline". Which isn't possible. It's
> > > >>>>>> not
> > > >>>>>> going to happen. External collection is how it's handled for the
> > > >>>>>> linux
> > > >>>>>> kernel and that community has far more sway than we do. If we ride
> > > >>>>>> their
> > > >>>>>> coattails here so to speak, we can get results. If we push for
> > > >>>>>> something
> > > >>>>>> completely different we aren't likely to have success.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Which is another part of why I keep pushing against having U-Boot
> > > >>>>>>>> configuration stuff inside of Labgrid as it makes it harder for
> > > >>>>>>>> any lab
> > > >>>>>>>> that's not using labgrid to see how to configure things.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well, as you requested, I looked at Labgrid and now my lab uses
> > > >>>>>>> it. I
> > > >>>>>>> am happy to publish the config[1], but I still hold my view that
> > > >>>>>>> all
> > > >>>>>>> the shell scripts in u-boot-test-hooks are limiting and painful to
> > > >>>>>>> work with.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Yes, and as I've shown, you can also use labgrid without going
> > > >>>>>> down the
> > > >>>>>> same path you took, and we can also support other lab management
> > > >>>>>> methods
> > > >>>>>> too, which is important to get as much testing as possible without
> > > >>>>>> needing to centralize everything.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> In summary, I suppose we just have different visions and ideas,
> > > >>>>> which
> > > >>>>> should be a good thing.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> So long as the project can speak with one voice, yes. Which all
> > > >>>> circles
> > > >>>> back to why I do not think what you're doing with u-boot.org is at
> > > >>>> all
> > > >>>> helpful.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I do need a relief valve for when my efforts are blocked.
> > > >>
> > > >> And I do not see how using the project domain is appropriate. Stop
> > > >> doing
> > > >> this. If you can't stop I'm going to reach my own limit here.
> > > >
> > > > I'm happy to have source.u-boot.org or similar point to Denx, but I do
> > > > need my own tree while my work is blocked from submission. I suggest
> > > > we discuss it on a call and try to figure out a compromise while we
> > > > are in this state.
> > >
> > > Isn;t it possible to add a repo at source.denx.de ? Like u-boot-sjg ?
> > >
> > > or u-boot-ci ?
> >
> > I don't have permission to do that. With my tree I am able to have CI
> > running in half the time, use my full lab (not just the subset Tom's
> > tree has), push patches and ideas that others have blocked, point
> > people to my work, etc. It is a much better environment for me to
> > continue (what I see as) necessary innovation.
> >
> > That said, if you wish to add a top-level project for me, then I would
> > push things to it, yes.
>
> To be clear, you can have
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/contributors/sjg/ but you can't host your
> downstream fork on source.denx.de itself and I wish you wouldn't abuse
> the project domain for it either.
By calling my efforts a 'downstream fork', it seems to me you are
strengthening the current situation. I wish you would change your
terminology here.
Also, I have explained why I feel I must have my own tree for now. If
you are looking at making any changes to accomodate my concerns in the
short term, then perhaps we should refrain from discussing this topic
so often? It may just be wasting space on the mailing list if there is
no room for movement.
Regards,
Simon
