[U-Boot] [PATCH 00/23] efi_loader implement missing functions

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On 29 August 2017 at 22:16, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm at linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:26:48PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> > > > I would add command
>>> > > > bootefi selftest.efi
>>> > > > to run the tests and provide the python wrapper code to add it to the
>>> > > > test suite.
>>> > >
>>> > > I think that's a great idea, yes.
>>> > I wonder how far we are from running UEFI tests (either the official
>>> > ones, or I seem to remember hearing about some other test suite which
>>> > didn't require UEFI shell)?
>>>
>>> Let's ask Leif, Ard and Dong.
>>>
>>> The official test suite definitely needs the UEFI Shell. Is the suite
>>> publicly available by now?
>>
>> In binary form, you can access it already from the links on
>> http://uefi.org/testtools
>>
>> Yes, 2.5 is latest release. No this is not a restriction ... the SCT
>> releases have been lagging the specification releases a fair bit.
>>
>> The 2.5a package contains AARCH64, IA32 and X64 support (not ARM).
>> Not that it couldn't contain ARM, it just hasn't been packaged.
>>
>>> > That seems more useful long term than re-inventing comprehensive UEFI
>>> > test suite.  (Also, beyond just running shim/fallback/grub, I don't
>>> > really have time to invent new tests for the stack of efi_loader
>>> > patches I have.)
>>>
>>> Yes and no - it depends on the availability of the official suite :/.
>>
>> UEFI SCT is not yet open source/free software. Obviously, this is
>> something Linaro has been lobbying for since day one of our
>> involvement. There used to be little understanding for this, but that
>> attitude has shifted substantially.
>
> So, if/until UEFI SCT is not an option, what about:
>
>   https://01.org/linux-uefi-validation
>
> (thx to pjones for pointing that out to me)

Well in any case I'm not looking for a large functional test suite at
this stage. It certainly could be useful, but not as a replacement for
unit tests. The latter is for fast verification (so that everyone can
run it as part of 'make tests') and easy identification of the
location of bugs.

These new tests should be written in C, run very quickly (similar to
the existing tests) to verify that the code works. Then when each new
feature is added, the test are expanded to cover the new
functionality. Should the code be refactored, the tests should provide
comfort that nothing broke.

>
> BR,
> -R
>
>
>
>> I will let Dong fill in on what the current status actually get the
>> code into the open is.
>>
>> /
>>     Leif

Regards,
Simon