[PATCH v11 06/29] test: boot: fix bootflow_cmd_label for when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled

[Simon Glass]

Hi Jerome,

On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 06:01, Jerome Forissier
<jerome.forissier at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/4/24 11:37, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Oct 2024 at 11:46, Jerome Forissier
> > <jerome.forissier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/4/24 08:55, Ilias Apalodimas wrote:
> >>> Hi Jerome,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2024 at 18:23, Jerome Forissier
> >>> <jerome.forissier at linaro.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> When DSA_SANDBOX is not set, the sandbox tests fail as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>  $ ./test/py/test.py --build-dir=$(pwd) -k bootdev_test_any
> >>>>  [...]
> >>>>  Scanning for bootflows with label '9'
> >>>>  [...]
> >>>>  Cannot find '9' (err=-19)
> >>>>
> >>>> This is due to the device list containing two less entries than
> >>>> expected. Therefore, look for label '7' when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled.
> >>>>
> >>>> The actual use case is NET_LWIP=y (to be introduced in later patches)
> >>>> which implies DSA_SANDBOX=n for the time being.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier at linaro.org>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  test/boot/bootflow.c | 7 +++++--
> >>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >>>> index 6ad63afe90a..c440b8eb778 100644
> >>>> --- a/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >>>> +++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c
> >>>> @@ -109,9 +109,12 @@ static int bootflow_cmd_label(struct unit_test_state *uts)
> >>>>          * 8   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc2.bootdev
> >>>>          * 9   [ + ]      OK  mmc       mmc1.bootdev
> >>>>          * a   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc0.bootdev
> >>>> +        *
> >>>> +        * However with CONFIG_DSA_SANDBOX=n we have two less (dsa-test at 0 and
> >>>> +        * dsa-test at 1).
> >>>>          */
> >>>> -       ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));
> >>>> -       ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");
> >>>
> >>> Shouldn't this under and #ifdef, IS_ENABLED etc?
> >>
> >> In theory yes, but we can avoid the conditional by using index 7 which is always
> >> valid, i.e., in all configurations we have at least 7 devices (even 8 actually).
> >
> > Ok, but I *think* Simon was trying to match the exact out put here,
> > not 'at least 7'.
> >
> > I think we are better off being strict on this test
>
> No because there are 10 entries according to the comment ("a" hex being
> mmc0.bootdev). Simon, what do you suggest?

I don't think this is a huge deal.

Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>

BTW, 'fewer', not 'less', if you can count them


>
> Thanks,
> --
> Jerome
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > /Ilias
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> +       ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 7", 0));
> >>>> +       ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '7'");
> >>>>         ut_assert_skip_to_line("(1 bootflow, 1 valid)");
> >>>>
> >>>>         ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 0", 0));
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.40.1
> >>>>