[PATCH v2 5/5] test: abootimg: Add test for bootconfig handling

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 at 17:01, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:06:05PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Guillaume,
> >
> > On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 at 14:19, Guillaume La Roque (TI.com)
> > <glaroque at baylibre.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add test to verify that androidboot.* parameters are correctly extracted
> > > from bootargs and appended to the bootconfig section when using
> > > 'abootimg get ramdisk' with boot image v4 and vendor_boot image.
> > >
> > > The test verifies:
> > > - androidboot.* parameters are removed from bootargs
> > > - They are appended to the bootconfig section in the ramdisk
> > > - Non-androidboot parameters remain in bootargs
> > > - The bootconfig trailer is properly updated
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Guillaume La Roque (TI.com) <glaroque at baylibre.com>
> > > ---
> > >  test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py | 108 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > >  1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py b/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py
> > > index 2aadb692b30..bd5fb992a7d 100644
> > > --- a/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py
> > > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py
> > > @@ -69,15 +69,33 @@ e5bddc8a7b792d8e8788c896ce9b88d32ebe6c971e7ddd3543cae734cd01
> > >  c0ffc84c0000b0766d1a87d4e5afeadd3dab7a6f10000000f84163d5d7cd
> > >  d43a000000000000000060c53e7544995700400000"""
> > >
> > > -# vendor boot image v4 hex dump
> > > -vboot_img_hex = """1f8b0808baaecd63020376626f6f742e696d6700edd8310b824018c6f1b3
> > > -222a08f41b3436b4280dcdd19c11d16ee9109d18d59042d047ec8b04cd0d
> > > -d19d5a4345534bf6ffc173ef29272f38e93b1d0ec67dd79d548462aa1cd2
> > > -d5d20b0000f8438678f90c18d584b8a4bbb3a557991ecb2a0000f80d6b2f
> > > -f4179b656be5c532f2fc066f040000000080e23936af2755f62a3d918df1
> > > -db2a7ab67f9ffdeb7df7cda3465ecb79c4ce7e5c577562bb9364b74449a5
> > > -1e467e20c53c0a57de763193c1779b3b4fcd9d4ee27c6a0e00000000c0ff
> > > -309ffea7010000000040f1dc004129855400400000"""
> > > +# vendor boot image v4 hex dump (contains initial bootconfig: androidboot.hardware=test)
> > > +vboot_img_hex = """1f8b08000000000002ffeddb316a02411806d009a49040606d3d84374823a9a348b095
> > > +915951b2c9caee8690ce237a91406a0b497603e215dcbc577cf3334cf5350303b3787a
> > > +9c4fa6d3e7dbf02b6b63dfc6b01b0180ffe726644d5e37975bb34108c76efa1eb65974
> > > +c7fed691c600e02a64e7ab3e8494afe37bd128050000007ae6707ffad202000000f45b
> > > +155fd3b67e59eee26751c674a711000000e89ff896aa729b5665d98c37b14a1fb1ca1f
> > > +da4f7f5e02000000a0377e0040ab5ba000500000"""
> > > +
> > > +# bootable boot image v4 hex dump (contains actual bootable kernel)
> > > +boot_bootable_img_hex = """1f8b08081663ee6802ff626f6f745f626f6f7461626c655f76342e696d67
> > > +00edd1c14ac3401485e159b80a083ec24dba4f117c81d8140c6dad24ee25
> > > +4da6e9d07452321305dfca37d4d4ec5cb954fe6f37ccb967606ef298e6db
> > > +2c0d3f94526feae25adda81fae140000000000f8ab66e17c67ecdc1d025d
> > > +1d3a89125bf79da9e5beebbc64a7b2d1f27a27cfda7959e9deea369a8263
> > > +a0eaecde34e2c75b375495766e3fb46114cca430a7a12dbd96e3654a7663
> > > +dfb9f4feeb383514beecbdb1cd1489e3380a5cabf5596ea7c4f78b62acf1
> > > +a66ccdbbaea380950100000000f06b79b249b362f5f2b44e16cb87ed3a5d
> > > +e67c0a0000000000ffcc27ba944c7e00300000"""
> > > +
> > > +# bootable vendor boot image v4 hex dump (contains actual bootable ramdisk)
> > > +vendor_boot_bootable_img_hex = """1f8b08081663ee6802ff76656e646f725f626f6f745f626f6f7461626c65
> > > +5f76342e696d6700edd8b10a02310cc6f10c0e7220f8080737b8b93ab9a8
> > > +282e571171959e0d787058a84557f5c96ddd7d80c3ff0f92217c5396408e
> > > +f56abf30e63090649c9b3c53bd050000fcab57d45b3c35de47db749a06bb
> > > +e1eff08c7d0100d00bf6ea826f5dbef0d38b0dee618396f3f27bf69ddedb
> > > +b316558a4d462255fe132c4dbdde6e0a160700000000408f7c0027597569
> > > +00200000"""
> > >
> > >  # Expected response for "abootimg dtb_dump" command
> > >  dtb_dump_resp="""## DTB area contents (concat format):
> > > @@ -179,6 +197,24 @@ def abootimgv4_disk_image_boot(ubman):
> > >          gtdi3 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'bootv4.img', boot_img_hex)
> > >      return gtdi3
> > >
> > > +gtdi4 = None
> > > + at pytest.fixture(scope='function')
> > > +def abootimgv4_bootable_disk_image_boot(ubman):
> > > +    """pytest fixture to provide bootable boot image v4."""
> > > +    global gtdi4
> > > +    if not gtdi4:
> > > +        gtdi4 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'boot_bootable_v4.img', boot_bootable_img_hex)
> > > +    return gtdi4
> > > +
> > > +gtdi5 = None
> > > + at pytest.fixture(scope='function')
> > > +def abootimgv4_bootable_disk_image_vboot(ubman):
> > > +    """pytest fixture to provide bootable vendor boot image v4."""
> > > +    global gtdi5
> > > +    if not gtdi5:
> > > +        gtdi5 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'vendor_boot_bootable_v4.img', vendor_boot_bootable_img_hex)
> > > +    return gtdi5
> > > +
> > >  @pytest.mark.boardspec('sandbox')
> > >  @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('android_boot_image')
> > >  @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_abootimg')
> > > @@ -266,3 +302,57 @@ def test_abootimgv4(abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot, abootimgv4_disk_image_boot, ubm
> > >      ubman.run_command('fdt get value v / model')
> > >      response = ubman.run_command('env print v')
> > >      assert response == 'v=x2'
> > > +
> > > + at pytest.mark.boardspec('sandbox')
> > > + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('android_boot_image')
> > > + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_abootimg')
> > > + at pytest.mark.requiredtool('xxd')
> > > + at pytest.mark.requiredtool('gunzip')
> > > +def test_abootimg_bootconfig(abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot,
> > > +                              abootimgv4_disk_image_boot,
> > > +                              ubman):
> > > +    """Test bootconfig handling with boot image v4.
> > > +
> > > +    Verifies that androidboot.* parameters from bootargs are appended to the
> > > +    bootconfig section in vendor_boot image in memory, and that non-androidboot
> > > +    parameters remain in bootargs.
> > > +    """
> > > +
> > > +    # Setup addresses
> > > +    ram_base = utils.find_ram_base(ubman)
> > > +    ramdisk_addr_r = ram_base + 0x4000000
> > > +    ubman.run_command('setenv ramdisk_addr_r 0x%x' % ramdisk_addr_r)
> > > +    ubman.run_command('setenv loadaddr 0x%x' % loadaddr)
> > > +    ubman.run_command('setenv vloadaddr 0x%x' % vloadaddr)
> > > +
> > > +    # Set bootargs with androidboot.* parameters
> > > +    ubman.run_command('setenv bootargs "androidboot.serialno=ABC123 androidboot.mode=recovery console=ttyS0"')
> > > +
> > > +    # Load images
> > > +    ubman.run_command('host load hostfs - 0x%x %s' % (vloadaddr,
> > > +        abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot.path))
> > > +    ubman.run_command('host load hostfs - 0x%x %s' % (loadaddr,
> > > +        abootimgv4_disk_image_boot.path))
> > > +    ubman.run_command('abootimg addr 0x%x 0x%x' % (loadaddr, vloadaddr))
> > > +
> > > +    # Extract ramdisk (triggers bootconfig append)
> > > +    ubman.run_command('abootimg get ramdisk ramdisk_addr ramdisk_size')
> > > +
> > > +    # Get ramdisk address
> > > +    response = ubman.run_command('env print ramdisk_addr')
> > > +    ramdisk_start = int(response.split('=')[1], 16)
> > > +
> > > +    # Verify androidboot.* parameters were removed from bootargs
> > > +    response = ubman.run_command('env print bootargs')
> > > +    assert 'androidboot.' not in response
> > > +    assert 'console=ttyS0' in response
> > > +
> > > +    # Get ramdisk size and verify BOOTCONFIG magic at the end
> > > +    response = ubman.run_command('env print ramdisk_size')
> > > +    ramdisk_size = int(response.split('=')[1], 16)
> > > +
> > > +    # Dump the end of the ramdisk where BOOTCONFIG trailer should be
> > > +    response = ubman.run_command('md.b 0x%x 96' % (ramdisk_start))
> > > +
> > > +    # Verify BOOTCONFIG magic is present
> > > +    assert 'BOOTCONFIG' in response or 'BOOTCON' in response
> > >
> >
> > It looks like this test could be written in C?
>
> But this is just extending existing tests, and so this is fine. Looking
> at
> https://source.denx.de/u-boot/u-boot/-/pipelines/27943/test_report?job_name=sandbox%20test.py%3A%20%5Bamd64%5D
> we can see these tests are currently under 400ms each, FYI.

Yes, OK. The python tests are ~100x slower though, so we really should
use C where possible. Part of this is being hidden by the overhead of
individually running the C tests from Python. I suppose we could
improve that by running the tests in batches, but I haven't looked at
it.

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

Regards,
Simon