On 5 January 2015 at 15:31, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05.01.15 16:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 8 September 2014 at 11:46, Alexander Graf <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 08.09.14 10:00, Guillaume Gardet wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Le 08/09/2014 09:07, Matwey V. Kornilov a écrit : >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about adding couple of test cases for ARM to our >>>>> openQA? I remember two cases when our JeOSes were broken independently >>>>> of hardware. First one, when u-boot was looking for boot.scr in wrong >>>>> place, second one, when the kernel 3.14 was broken due to bug in depmod. >>>>> >>>>> So, I think that we could test JeOS-vexpress and JeOS-vexpress64 for >>>>> armv7 and aarch64 using qemu emulation (I know that it is slow ;) ) >>>>> >>>>> Then just check that the image is booted for the first time, and for >>>>> the second time, controlling the process through serial console. >>>>> >>>>> At the moment I have no idea how many efforts are needed to implement >>>>> this. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds good to me but I have zero knowledge on openQA. >>> >>> Yup. Definitely a really good idea. I think the easiest target machine >>> to get working with our setup is the BeagleBoard emulation, as it runs >>> the whole stack including u-boot. >>> >>> Unfortunately, that one is downstream in the Linaro qemu fork [1]. I >>> tried to get it working for that exact use case a while ago and needed >>> the patch below on top of ac0bfdb9c. >>> >>> Good luck :) >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> [1] git://git.linaro.org/qemu/qemu-linaro.git >>> >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c b/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c >>> index 9e78cc3..3df9ca1 100644 >>> --- a/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c >>> +++ b/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c >>> @@ -684,8 +684,7 @@ static int omap3_mmc_raw_boot(BlockDriverState *bs, >>> } >>> } >>> >>> - result = (boot->state == done); >>> - free(boot); >>> + result = omap3_boot_finish(boot); >>> } >>> return result; >>> } >>> diff --git a/hw/misc/twl4030.c b/hw/misc/twl4030.c >>> index 56d91cb..56a38f9 100644 >>> --- a/hw/misc/twl4030.c >>> +++ b/hw/misc/twl4030.c >>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ typedef void (*twl4030_write_func)(TWL4030NodeState *s, >>> #define TYPE_TWL4030NODE "twl4030-node" >>> #define TWL4030NODE(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(TWL4030NodeState, (obj), >>> TYPE_TWL4030NODE) >>> >>> -typedef struct TWL4030NodeState { >>> +struct TWL4030NodeState { >>> I2CSlave parent_obj; >>> int firstbyte; >>> uint8_t reg; >>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ typedef struct TWL4030NodeState { >>> TWL4030State *twl4030; >>> >>> uint8 reg_data[256]; >>> -} TWL4030NodeState; >>> +}; >>> >>> struct TWL4030State { >>> qemu_irq irq1; >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>> To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected] >>> >> >> Does anyone know if this patch is still required, and what else needs >> to be done to get OpenQA to work? I'm being shamed by our illustrious >> Chairman with regards to OpenQA and as a matter of pride I'd like to >> get OpenQA working with ARM - also Linaro are discussing whether to >> use OpenQA or not. > > I'm not sure you really want to base on the Beagle emulation for OpenQA. > The "virt" machine in QEMU would make a much nicer target, especially > since it also supports KVM properly. The only missing link to get > everything properly running is a working virtual PCI host bridge so that > we can use PCI VGA adapters and USB for keyboard/mouse. > OK that works for me, I'm not fussed about what the platform is. All I'm after is getting functional OpenQA tests for ARM. So if that means using a generic platform then great.
> Writing such an emulation is on my todo list, but I'd be more than happy > if someone else beats me to it ;). > One of the many things I on that growing list I guess? Thanks for the info and I'll see what can happen. > However, as for your original question: > > Peter, did I ever send you the patch above? > > > Alex -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
