[PATCH v2 28/32] test: cmd: fdt: Test fdt memory

[Marek Vasut]

On 3/9/23 23:09, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 at 15:16, Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at mailbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/8/23 23:23, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Marek,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 1 Mar 2023 at 19:09, Marek Vasut
>>> <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Add 'fdt memory' test which works as follows:
>>>> - Create custom FDT with /memory node, with select #*cells, map it to sysmem
>>>> - Perform memory fixup
>>>> - Read back the /memory node and validate its content
>>>>
>>>> The test case can be triggered using:
>>>> "
>>>> ./u-boot -Dc 'ut fdt'
>>>> "
>>>> To dump the full output from commands used during test, add '-v' flag.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut+renesas at mailbox.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> Cc: Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt at canonical.com>
>>>> Cc: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
>>>> Cc: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> V2: Add RB from Simon
>>>> ---
>>>>    test/cmd/fdt.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>    1 file changed, 83 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>
>>> This patch and some others cause test failures. I applied those that I
>>> could to u-boot-dm/next
>>>
>>> Can you please rebase and take a look?
>>
>> Does it work any better if you also apply:
>>
>> [PATCH] console: Use only 0x00 as line separator for console recording
>>
>> ?
>>
>> If so, then just pick the aforementioned patch and the rest of this series.
> 
> Yes, but one of the patches causes a fault in sandbox_spl:
> 
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/custodians/u-boot-dm/-/jobs/590598

None in this series, but I sent out

[PATCH v2 1/2] test: Wrap assert macros in ({ ... }) and fix missing 
semicolons

That should help.