[PATCH v3 3/3] test: hook up test of allowing control DTB to act as FIT image

[Rasmus Villemoes]

On Fri, May 29 2026, "Simon Glass" <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:

> Hi Rasmus,
>
> On 2026-05-29T19:46:18, Rasmus Villemoes <rv at rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>> test: hook up test of allowing control DTB to act as FIT image
>>
>> Add a test demonstrating how one can embed various scripts in the
>> control DTB.
>>
>> Verify that the source command can be used with ${fdtcontroladdr} by
>> itself (invoking the default script), and with :<node-name>
>> suffix. Check that the scripts themselves can invoke 'sibling'
>> scripts. Also verify that without CONTROL_DTB_AS_FIT set, the control
>> DTB is not accepted by the source command.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <rv at rasmusvillemoes.dk>
>>
>> arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox-boot.sh      |  2 ++
>>  arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox-inner.sh     |  4 ++++
>>  arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox-outer.sh     |  4 ++++
>>  arch/sandbox/dts/sandbox_scripts.dtsi | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  configs/sandbox_defconfig             |  2 ++
>>  test/py/tests/test_source.py          | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  6 files changed, 68 insertions(+)
>
>> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_source.py b/test/py/tests/test_source.py
>> @@ -34,3 +34,35 @@ def test_source(ubman):
>> + at pytest.mark.boardspec('sandbox')
>> + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_echo')
>> + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_source')
>> + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('fit')
>> + at pytest.mark.notbuildconfigspec('control_dtb_as_fit')
>> +def test_source_reject_control_dtb(ubman):
>> +    assert 'Fail' in ubman.run_command('source ${fdtcontroladdr} || echo Fail')
>> +    assert 'Fail' in ubman.run_command('source ${fdtcontroladdr}:boot || echo Fail')
>
> Just to check: since sandbox_defconfig now enables CONTROL_DTB_AS_FIT,
> this case is skipped on the main sandbox build. Did you confirm it
> runs on one of the other variants (sandbox_noinst / sandbox_spl /
> sandbox64)? If none satisfy the marker combination, this is dead code.

Indeed, I didn't really know exactly what boardspec('sandbox') meant,
and couldn't find any documentation on it, so I kinda assumed it meant
"all the sandbox_*" defconfigs.

But regardless, I suppose the right thing to do is to just drop that
boardspec line, since this really should fail on any .config without
control_dtb_as_fit, regardless of whether any scripts are included in
the .dtb via an appropriate .dtsi or not.

Rasmus