[U-Boot] RFC: Testing U-Boot Part 1

[Simon Glass]

Hi Graeme,

On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Graeme Russ <graeme.russ at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On 27/08/11 10:25, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Mike,
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2011 23:32:38 Simon Glass wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>> - I mean that the tftp command will 'obtain' a file when it asks for
>>>> one, although the actual Ethernet layer is mocked and doesn't actually
>>>> go out on the wire. Imagine an Ethernet driver which has a half-baked
>>>> tftp server in it. Yes I also see value in actually using machine
>>>> interfaces since the testing can be more thorough.
>>>
>>> why not just build on top of tun/tap ?  then we do get "real" network traffic,
>>> and you dont have to write your own tftp server because you can simply use the
>>> same exact one on your development machine that the board would connect to.
>>> -mike
>>
>> Because then you need to set up a real tftp server. It's fine to do
>> what you suggest, but if possible it would be nice to have
>> self-contained tests also, so long as it isn't too much work.
>>
>
> I don't consider having to set up a tftp server as a bad thing - Quite the
> opposite really. There is plenty of network code in U-Boot that will
> benefit from testing under the sandbox target because it is much easier to
> debug. And there will be minimal impact on U-Boot code (just a sandbox
> 'Ethernet' driver is all that will be needed)
>
> I am reminded of when the R&D department that developed to eNET board were
> doing the firmware development before the first prototypes were available -
> The created a HAL which used pcap from memory. I wasn't part of that team,
> so I really don't know the details...

Yes, sounds good, will put you down for the network testing part :-)

I will work on a basic patch set and try to get it to the list early next week.

Regards,
Simon

>
> Regards,
>
> Graeme
>