[PATCH] test/py: tpm2: Skip tpm pytest based on env variable

[Ilias Apalodimas]

Hi Michal,

[...]
> >>>> Thanks for explaining.  This got me to re-read the existing tests and while
> >>>> none of it is as clear as I would like, your example here is just as clear as the
> >>>> rest, so it's fine and I'll pick it up soon.
> >>>
> >>> I see this patch is not yet applied on the repo, could you please let me know when this will be applied?
> >>
> >> Ilias, since you've said you'd review TPM related patches, does this:
> >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/1624340962-91190-1-git-send-email-t.karthik.reddy@xilinx.com/
> >> work for you?  Thanks.
> >>
> >
> > I am not too familiar with the pytest framework we have, but couldn't
> > we do this automatically?
> > IOW instead of explicitly adding a variable, do a 'tpm info' and if
> > that doesn't return a valid device, skip the tests.
>
> Unfortunately not. Because imagine how this will work if you have tpm on
> board but there is bug in the driver that it is not probed. Then tpm
> info will return no device and all tests will be silently skipped.

Looking at tpm_info I think it's the other way around, isn't it ?
tpm_info will call get_tpm(), which in theory will fail if there's no
TPM probed or not present.  So even in that case the self-tests will
fail.

OTOH the 'tpm info' command just returns a CMD Success/Failure, so
it's not easy to figure out if a TPM is indeed present or not without
refactoring the cmdline interface.  So I think this is reasonable for
now

Acked-by: Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org>

>
> It would be much better it the test itself was designed from the
> beginning that you need to state that board has TPM. But it wasn't
> that's why we designed this patch in a way that you declare that you
> want to skip these tests which is OK.
>
> It doesn't make any sense to go back and start to have multiple
> defconfigs for different configurations where all boards works quite
> well with one defconfig. That's why we enable TPM because it on SOM but
> we need to be able to disable these tests on others.
>
> Thanks,
> Michal
>
>
>