[PATCH v4 2/2] binman: expand test coverage to nxp_imx8mcst

[Fabio Estevam]

Hi Brian,

On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 5:08 AM Brian Ruley
<brian.ruley at gehealthcare.com> wrote:
>
> Add coverage for IMX8M code siging. Create PKI tree and other assets
> required by `cst' using `hab4_pki_tree.sh' script and `srktool' in
> `cst_3.4.1' [1].
>
> [1] https://www.nxp.com/webapp/Download?colCode=IMX_CST_TOOL_NEW
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Ruley <brian.ruley at gehealthcare.com>
> ---
> Changes for v4:
> - Rebased on master:
>     340_nxp_imx8mcst.dts -> 343_nxp_imx8mcst.dts
>     341_nxp_imx8mcst_fast_auth.dts -> 344_nxp_imx8mcst_fast_auth.dts

Here is the result when I tried applying and testing this:

$ git am ~/Downloads/v4-1-2-binman-nxp_imx8mcst-read-certificates-from-input-path.patch
Applying: binman: nxp_imx8mcst: read certificates from input path
Applying: binman: expand test coverage to nxp_imx8mcst
.git/rebase-apply/patch:206: trailing whitespace.
            X509v3 Basic Constraints:
.git/rebase-apply/patch:208: trailing whitespace.
            Netscape Comment:
.git/rebase-apply/patch:210: trailing whitespace.
            X509v3 Subject Key Identifier:
.git/rebase-apply/patch:212: trailing whitespace.
            X509v3 Authority Key Identifier:
.git/rebase-apply/patch:333: trailing whitespace.
            X509v3 Basic Constraints:
warning: squelched 7 whitespace errors
warning: 12 lines add whitespace errors.


$ ./tools/binman/binman test testNxpImx8mCstFastAuth
======================== Running binman tests ========================
E
======================================================================
ERROR: testNxpImx8mCstFastAuth (binman.ftest.TestFunctional)
Test that binman can sign an iMX8M image using fast authentication
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ValueError: Error -11 running 'cst -i
/tmp/binman.tf697xr9/nxp.csf-config-txt.nxp-imx8mcst -o
/tmp/binman.tf697xr9/nxp.csf-output-blob.nxp-imx8mcst':

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ran 1 test in 1.318s

FAILED (errors=1)

Any ideas?