[PATCH v2 28/28] test: Add a test for booting Ubuntu 24.04
Tom Rini
trini at konsulko.com
Thu Mar 6 15:32:49 CET 2025
On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 07:16:08AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Heiko,
>
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Heiko Schocher <hs at denx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > On 27.02.25 20:26, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 10:20, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > > I'm happy to have source.u-boot.org or similar point to Denx, but I do
> > > need my own tree while my work is blocked from submission. I suggest
> > > we discuss it on a call and try to figure out a compromise while we
> > > are in this state.
> >
> > Isn;t it possible to add a repo at source.denx.de ? Like u-boot-sjg ?
> >
> > or u-boot-ci ?
>
> I don't have permission to do that. With my tree I am able to have CI
> running in half the time, use my full lab (not just the subset Tom's
> tree has), push patches and ideas that others have blocked, point
> people to my work, etc. It is a much better environment for me to
> continue (what I see as) necessary innovation.
>
> That said, if you wish to add a top-level project for me, then I would
> push things to it, yes.
To be clear, you can have
https://source.denx.de/u-boot/contributors/sjg/ but you can't host your
downstream fork on source.denx.de itself and I wish you wouldn't abuse
the project domain for it either.
--
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/20250306/faa1f626/attachment.sig>
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list