[U-Boot] [PATCH] test/py: don't use mmc_rd config for other mmc tests

[Stephen Warren]

On 5/1/19 4:51 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 4/30/19 10:27 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> On 4/30/19 5:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 4/16/19 4:04 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren at nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Fix test_mmc_dev(), test_mmc_rescan(), test_mmc_info() not to use the
>>>> same configuration data that test_mmc_rd() does. Doing so causes the
>>>> following issues:
>>>>
>>>> * The new code uncondtionally expects certain keys to exist in the
>>>> configuration data. These keys do not exist in existing configuration
>>>> data since they were not previously required, and there was no
>>>> notification re: a requirement to add these new keys. This causes test
>>>> failures due to thrown exceptions when accessing the non-existent keys.
>>>>
>>>> * The new tests logically operate on different objects. test_mmc_rd()
>>>> operates on ranges of sectors on an MMC device (which may be the entire
>>>> set of sectors of a device, or a part of a device), whereas all the new
>>>> tests operate solely on entire devices. These are separate things, and
>>>> it's entirely likely that the user will wish to runs the two types of
>>>> tests on different sets of data; see the example configuration data 
>>>> that
>>>> this commit adds. Ideally, the new tests would have been added to a
>>>> separate Python file, since they aren' closely related to the existing
>>>> tests.
>>>>
>>>> FIXME: Marek, can you please replace the "???" in this patch with some
>>>> reasonable looking data? Thanks.
>>>
>>> Tom, Marek, any chance of applying this? Right now, every mainline
>>> branch is failing 5 tests on every push, which wastes my time having to
>>> go through all the logs to manually check that the failures aren't
>>> anything new/unknown. Thanks.
>>
>> I'm still overloaded, and didn't have time to look into this. But I'm
>> really not fond of the duplication here -- now we have two big tables
>> describing very much the same thing, which SD/MMC to test .
> 
> There's no redundancy; the two different tests are semantically entirely 
> different and don't share any configuration. See the patch description 
> above for the full details.

Tom, could you please apply this patch to fix the test failures. Thanks.