[PATCH v2 28/28] test: Add a test for booting Ubuntu 24.04
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Thu Feb 27 18:20:01 CET 2025
On Thu, Feb 27, 2025 at 09:27:33AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 07:35, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 07:56:03PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 06:59, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 10:54:13AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 at 09:06, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 06:57:34AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 07:53, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025 at 06:49:49AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 17:55, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:01:40PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 at 08:11, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 05:09:23AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Tom,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 at 10:52, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 01:44:13PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that U-Boot can boot this quickly, using kvm, add a test that the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > installer starts up correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Use the qemu-x86_64 board in the SJG lab.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add more patches to support booting with kvm
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - Add new patch with a test for booting Ubuntu 24.04
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .gitlab-ci.yml | 5 ++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > test/py/tests/test_distro.py | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/.gitlab-ci.yml b/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 8c49d5b0a79..ec799e97c10 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- a/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/.gitlab-ci.yml
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -745,3 +745,8 @@ zybo:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > variables:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ROLE: zybo
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <<: *lab_dfn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +qemu-x86_64:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + variables:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ROLE: qemu-x86_64
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + <<: *lab_dfn
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure why this is in your lab stanza, rather than the normal
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test.py QEMU stanza.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Are you wanting to add the Ubuntu image into CI? It is quite large.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If we're going to be able to run it on N platforms, yes, we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > think of a good way to cache the download. There's not a particular
> > > > > > > > > > > > reason we can't run the stock Ubuntu RISC-V image on the two sifive
> > > > > > > > > > > > targets and also qemu-riscv64, is there?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we can do that. It is pretty simple to set up in Labgrid and it
> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require all the runners to download a much larger image, etc.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I don't quite understand why it's under "labgrid". These are generic CI
> > > > > > > > > > tests. Now maybe we need to, in both Gitlab and Azure, add some logic so
> > > > > > > > > > that certain longer or possibly destructive tests are only run on tagged
> > > > > > > > > > releases or as requested rather than every time, as it will take longer.
> > > > > > > > > > But pretty much every platform under the qemu target list should be able
> > > > > > > > > > to Just Boot an off the shelf OS distribution is my point.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sure, and I'm not suggesting we shouldn't do that as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_distro.py b/test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > index 00000000000..51eec45cecc
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_distro.py
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2025 Canonical Ltd.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +# Written by Simon Glass <simon.glass at canonical.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +import pytest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +DOWN = '\x1b\x5b\x42\x0d'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +# Enable early console so that the test can see if something goes wrong
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +CONSOLE = 'earlycon=uart8250,io,0x3f8 console=uart8250,io,0x3f8'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + at pytest.mark.boardspec('qemu-x86_64')
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + at pytest.mark.role('qemu-x86_64')
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +def test_distro(ubman):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + """Test that of-platdata can be generated and used in sandbox"""
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + with ubman.log.section('boot'):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.run_command('boot', wait_for_prompt=False)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + with ubman.log.section('Grub'):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Wait for grub to come up and offset a menu
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.p.expect(['Try or Install Ubuntu'])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Press 'e' to edit the command line
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.run_command('e', wait_for_prompt=False, send_nl=False)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Wait until we see the editor appear
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.p.expect(['/casper/initrd'])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Go down to the 'linux' line
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.send(DOWN * 3)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Go to end of line
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.ctrl('E')
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Backspace to remove 'quiet splash'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.send('\b' * len('quiet splash'))
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Send our noisy console
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.send(CONSOLE)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Tell grub to boot
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.ctrl('X')
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.p.expect(['Booting a command list'])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + with ubman.log.section('Linux'):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Linux should start immediately
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.p.expect(['Linux version'])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + with ubman.log.section('Ubuntu'):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + # Shortly later, we should see this banner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.p.expect(['Welcome to .*Ubuntu 24.04.1 LTS.*!'])
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > + ubman.restart_uboot()
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this seems very inflexible. Please see
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > test/py/tests/test_net_boot.py for an example of how to have this be
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > configurable and work on arbitrary platforms. What I assume is tricky is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > that the "role" part here is where you have a special disk image being
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > passed. That too could be dealt with in u-boot-test-hooks in a few ways,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and the images pre-fetched to the CI container. And if this was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > configurable similar to the example I noted above, it could check real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hardware too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That wasn't the reaction I expected.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, it is inflexible, but it is a starting point. Isn't it better
> > > > > > > > > > > > > than what we have today?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is your inflexible boot an OS test better than the flexible boot an OS
> > > > > > > > > > > > test that we have today? No, it's not.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I didn't even know about it, or perhaps I forgot.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I believe I mentioned it every time you've said we should have an OS
> > > > > > > > > > test, so yes, I guess you forgot.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Well it was only added in May last year and it relies on board config
> > > > > > > > > which I don't have...although I see that you have now posted yours.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, it was added not quite a year ago, and is documented within the
> > > > > > > > test, like most tests that rely on the real platform.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And do we need better documentation for test? Yes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > +1
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'll note that I did my bit!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps this relates to getting the labgrid config published and
> > > > > > > > > > > figuring out how to pass info from Labgrid to tests.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I would like to generalise this test to work on at least one real
> > > > > > > > > > > > > board, preferably one that doesn't use grub.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > OK. The test we have today does that, if you check for the "Welcome to
> > > > > > > > > > > > ..." string instead of the kernel has booted string. It also does
> > > > > > > > > > > > netboot rather than run default bootcmd. But that's an easy enough test
> > > > > > > > > > > > to write up. The only thing stopping me from doing that right now is I
> > > > > > > > > > > > need to find a board in the lab where we installed an OS to eMMC and not
> > > > > > > > > > > > SD card (some lab sd-mux issues).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > OK. Labgrid has a 'features' thing which you can attach to targets, so
> > > > > > > > > > > I should be able to use that to indicate that Ubuntu, Debian, Armbian,
> > > > > > > > > > > etc. are available.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, but that sounds like the opposite direction. These are generic tests
> > > > > > > > > > that can run in any / all of the labs, not just your labgrid
> > > > > > > > > > configuration. AMD has been contributing tests that run on hardware for
> > > > > > > > > > example.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That's great, the more tests we have the better. But those tests can't
> > > > > > > > > and don't run in CI, whereas mine can and do.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > AFAICT they're running on AMD's CI. They run on my CI. They don't run on
> > > > > > > > *your* lab because you took things, intentionally, in a direction to
> > > > > > > > minimize using u-boot-test-hooks and our existing per-board
> > > > > > > > configuration infrastructure.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When I look at CI all I see is my lab. Which CI are you referring to
> > > > > > > and how can I access it?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll point you at the notes for the first call we had recently:
> > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250128171923.GQ1233568@bill-the-cat/
> > > > > > and note that there are many labs doing testing on / with U-Boot.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's all good, but it isn't as good as having the lab in gitlab.
> > > >
> > > > Strongly disagree. Especially since having it in the mainline gitlab
> > > > isn't feasible.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Here I would like to make a case for moving to using Labgrid across
> > > > > > > the board, but unfortunately the project struggles to review PRs, so
> > > > > > > it's probably not a good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would also be counter to the feedback from the U-Boot community about
> > > > > > making it easier to contribute testing results from additional labs.
> > > > >
> > > > > I really don't think the test hooks are a good setup, though. It is
> > > > > OK-ish for small labs, but it is so fiddly to use that I wrote a tool
> > > > > (Labman) to deal with all the confusion.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I don't know how hard you evaluated all of the then-current lab
> > > > management tooling and wrote your own.
> > > >
> > > > > Labgrid (which you suggested I use for my lab, if you recall),
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I think you forgot the aim was to make it easy to show all of
> > > > the existing Labgrid based labs that do Linux kernel testing they could
> > > > easily add U-Boot to the mix. I've been trying to get feedback from
> > > > other people with existing labgrid setups to look at what you've done.
> > > >
> > > > > provides for two yaml configuration files so that everything is in one
> > > > > place. Apart from its primitive support for USB hubs, it is much
> > > > > easier to maintain that dozens of little files all over the palce.
> > > >
> > > > I mean, I looked at what you posted and strongly disagree, but I think
> > > > both cases here are personal preference and not some sort of objective
> > > > and easily evaluated thing.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > We need an 'all of the above' strategy here.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure. But I still want to see things as reusable as possible. What you
> > > > > > > > have above is *extremely* board and OS specific and non-configurable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, agreed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > also don't quite see why it's not a test of autoboot with the
> > > > > > > > pre-requisite of an OS being installed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ah OK, my test is just for the installer itself. Both are useful, but
> > > > > > > I hope eventually to have the installer run to completion and then
> > > > > > > reboot to check all is well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In the spirit of "yes, and.."'ing tests, sure. Ilias pointed me at some
> > > > > > testing Linaro has going now that automates I believe it was current
> > > > > > Yocto and current U-Boot (+ the pmb patches that've been posted) doing a
> > > > > > full install via network in CI. So yes, a Canonical lab might also find
> > > > > > it useful to end to end test installing Ubuntu. My own personal dream is
> > > > > > that at least some of the existing kernelci labs see the utility in
> > > > > > adding "current U-Boot" as one of the matrix variables they test and not
> > > > > > just "U-Boot as delivered by vendor" as a static part of the testing.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW, having thought about how test/py works a bit, instead of the
> > > > > > > > > env__net_tftp_bootable_file stuff, we should have code or data which
> > > > > > > > > sets up the required test files (on a suitable server) before running
> > > > > > > > > the test. That way, all the test code is in one Python file and we
> > > > > > > > > don't have to spend ages trying to divine what each test needs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That seems like a lot more work than documenting more what we have
> > > > > > > > today, and I'm not sure of the benefit. Given the contents of the pxe
> > > > > > > > test, yes, just having those files available to 'cp' in place would be
> > > > > > > > helpful. But that's not the case for booting a kernel (the FIT match
> > > > > > > > stuff doesn't work on the TI platforms atm). And if you look at the
> > > > > > > > config I posted it also includes bootstage configuration. It also won't
> > > > > > > > work well for the SPI tests, which I'm talking with Love about in
> > > > > > > > another thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, perhaps, but having self-contained tests would be a win.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With it's own set of technical and legal challenges / obligations and
> > > > > > difficulties depending on what you even mean by "self contained". And
> > > > > > how often what's run where, and all sorts of other challenges too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Given the extreme depth that testing can go to, this is why I'm of the
> > > > > > position that we need to document things more and worry less about
> > > > > > prepackaged things. For example, making the documentation for the
> > > > > > current net based OS boot means that for bringing up a new board the
> > > > > > developer can just drop something in. Whereas if the tests expect a
> > > > > > functional OS image that has to also be messed with and is its own
> > > > > > challenge.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In other words, the majority of py/<host>/u_boot_boardenv_ content is
> > > > > > > > configuration details, specific to both the platform / SoC first, some
> > > > > > > > lab specific details second and drop-in existing 3rd party files a
> > > > > > > > distant third.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think the u-boot-test-hooks was an amazing solution 9 years ago, but
> > > > > > > we have outgrown it. We want people to be able to connect their lab to
> > > > > > > CI (meaning gitlab), so testing is more automated.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More and more public testing would be great. The notes I linked above
> > > > > > explain one of the first problems there being that most companies will
> > > > > > not or can not hook a lab to a public CI instance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well corporate IT is what it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > That means that their boards will not be testing in CI, unless they do
> > > > > it themselves, right?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean here. It's a solved problem for them (monitor
> > > > tree at URL) and something that's been being done since the beginning
> > > > even for U-Boot (it's how the original nvidia lab worked).
> > > >
> > > > > > The next problem, as
> > > > > > both of our personal labs show, is that just maintaining the physical
> > > > > > lab takes time and resources. I've added Heiko here because I've been
> > > > > > talking with him off-list about expanding tbot coverage and plumbing
> > > > > > that in to gitlab.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We should move away from relying on maintainers getting around to
> > > > > > > testing patches months after they are sent, when they have time, but
> > > > > > > they don't. Things need to be more automated and I'd encourage you to
> > > > > > > push this as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have been, and the results I've gotten are that companies are testing
> > > > > > things internally but there's not any good way to publish results, and
> > > > > > that's the kind of framework we're entirely missing.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you like, but from my side, I like to see the results in gitlab.
> > > >
> > > > Depends on what you mean by gitlab. I assume you mean "triggered by a
> > > > push and visible in the main pipeline". Which isn't possible. It's not
> > > > going to happen. External collection is how it's handled for the linux
> > > > kernel and that community has far more sway than we do. If we ride their
> > > > coattails here so to speak, we can get results. If we push for something
> > > > completely different we aren't likely to have success.
> > > >
> > > > > > Which is another part of why I keep pushing against having U-Boot
> > > > > > configuration stuff inside of Labgrid as it makes it harder for any lab
> > > > > > that's not using labgrid to see how to configure things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, as you requested, I looked at Labgrid and now my lab uses it. I
> > > > > am happy to publish the config[1], but I still hold my view that all
> > > > > the shell scripts in u-boot-test-hooks are limiting and painful to
> > > > > work with.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and as I've shown, you can also use labgrid without going down the
> > > > same path you took, and we can also support other lab management methods
> > > > too, which is important to get as much testing as possible without
> > > > needing to centralize everything.
> > >
> > > In summary, I suppose we just have different visions and ideas, which
> > > should be a good thing.
> >
> > So long as the project can speak with one voice, yes. Which all circles
> > back to why I do not think what you're doing with u-boot.org is at all
> > helpful.
>
> I do need a relief valve for when my efforts are blocked.
And I do not see how using the project domain is appropriate. Stop doing
this. If you can't stop I'm going to reach my own limit here.
--
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250227/7d3068be/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list