[PATCH v2 3/3] test: hook up test of allowing control DTB to act as FIT image

[Simon Glass]

Hi Rasmus,

On Tue, 26 May 2026 at 15:18, Rasmus Villemoes <ravi at prevas.dk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 25 2026, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rasmus,
> >
> > On 2026-05-19T22:54:57, Rasmus Villemoes <ravi at prevas.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. Also check that the scripts themselves can invoke 'sibling'
> >> scripts.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rasmus Villemoes <ravi at prevas.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          | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>  6 files changed, 54 insertions(+)
> >
> >> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_source.py b/test/py/tests/test_source.py
> >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ import utils
> >>  @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_echo')
> >>  @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_source')
> >>  @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('fit')
> >> + at pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('control_dtb_as_fit')
> >>  def test_source(ubman):
> >
> > buildconfigspec markers are ANDed in conftest.py, so the entire
> > pre-existing test_source is now skipped on any sandbox build that has
> > FIT but not CONTROL_DTB_AS_FIT - so silently losing coverage of the
> > original source tests.
> >
> > Please split the new assertions into a second function, say
> > test_source_control_dtb, with the extra marker on its own. That also
> > makes the new functionality independently selectable.
>
> Yes, I did consider doing that, and I must admit I'm not really sure why
> I ended up not doing it. Will redo.
>
> Is it worth it adding another function marked with
> @pytest.mark.notbuildconfigspec('control_dtb_as_fit') and checking that
> 'source ${fdtcontroladdr}' always fails in that case?

The seems like a good idea to me.

Regards,
Simon