On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 02:44:30PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 10:52:05 +0100 > Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Kory, > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 10:02 Kory Maincent <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:40:58 +0200 > > > Mattijs Korpershoek <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:17, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 07:08:54PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > > > > >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:05:27 -0600 > > > > >> Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:45PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > > > > >> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:37:29 -0600 > > > > >> > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 08:15:48AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:50:09AM +0200, Kory Maincent > > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 10:48:37 -0600 > > > > >> > > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:05:51PM +0100, Simon Glass > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Kory, > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 14:32, Kory Maincent (TI.com) > > > > >> > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This series converts the extension board framework > > > > >> > > > > > > > > to > > > use > > > > >> > > > > > > > > UCLASS as requested by Simon Glass, then adds > > > extension > > > > >> > > > > > > > > support to pxe_utils and bootmeth_efi (not tested) to > > > > >> > > > > > > > > enable extension boards devicetree load in the > > > standard > > > > >> > > > > > > > > boot process. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I can't test the imx8 extension scan enabled by the > > > > >> > > > > > > > > imx8mm-cl-iot-gate_defconfig as I don't have this > > > board. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I also can't test the efi bootmeth change as I don't > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > have > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such board. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > You can test this with sandbox, using one of the > > > bootmeth > > > > >> > > > > > > > tests, perhaps. Let me know if you need help with this. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But the question is, does the real hardware platform work > > > > >> > > > > > > before/after this, not does the sandbox test still work > > > > >> > > > > > > before/after this. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It seems the bootlflow scan is not working on the sandbox > > > on next > > > > >> > > > > > branch. Is this issue known? > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Is it fine on master? The next branch will be out of date > > > until it > > > > >> > > > > re-opens with -rc2 being released (2 weeks from today). > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > ... out of sync local calendar, 3 weeks from today, not 2. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > bootstd test suit is not working on master with the > > > sandbox_defconfig: > > > > >> > > https://termbin.com/un0p > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Noticeable things are; > > > > >> > > test/boot/bootdev.c:160, bootdev_test_any(): 0 == > > > > >> > > bootdev_find_by_any(seq, &dev, &mflags): Expected 0x0 (0), got > > > > >> > > 0xffffffed (-19) Test: bootdev_test_any: bootdev.c (flat tree) > > > > >> > > test/boot/bootdev.c:160, bootdev_test_any(): 0 == > > > > >> > > bootdev_find_by_any(seq, &dev, &mflags): Expected 0x0 (0), got > > > > >> > > 0xffffffed (-19) Test 'bootdev_test_any' failed 2 times > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > And a nice segfault: > > > > >> > > Test: bootflow_set_arg: bootflow.c > > > > >> > > Test: bootflow_system: bootflow.c > > > > >> > > [3] 569337 segmentation fault (core dumped) ./u-boot > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Maybe things are missing to run sandbox_defconfig on my computer? > > > > >> > > With the sandbox64_defconfig there is not core dump anymore but > > > there > > > > >> > > is still the failed line: > > > > >> > > Test 'bootdev_test_bootable' failed 2 times > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > And the uboot is reboot infinitely during the bootflow test: > > > > >> > > ./u-boot -T -c "ut bootstd" > > > > >> > > https://termbin.com/alu5 > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I see the same thing you do when running them outside of pytest, > > > > >> > but > > > > >> > they're also fine within pytest. > > > > >> > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/pytest/usage.html should > > > > >> > > > > help > > > > >> > get you started, and you can just run all of the ut tests under > > > that. > > > > >> > > > > >> Weird I got errors also within pytest. > > > > >> See the html test log attached generated by the following command: > > > > >> ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox -k bootstd > > > > > > > > > > Same. There's some implicit dependencies around I believe. Doing "-k > > > ut" > > > > > should work, as I tried that (via my wrapper around all this) as well > > > > > > > > as > > > > > just running all the tests (which is longer). > > > > > > > > That's my understanding as well > > > > > > > > In Kory's log we see: > > > > > > > > MMC: Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument > > > > sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img' > > > > Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument > > > > sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img' > > > > mmc_probe() mmc1 - probe failed: -1 > > > > mmc2: 2 (SD)Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument > > > > sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img' > > > > , mmc0: 0 (SD) > > > > > > > > These mmc1.img are needed for the bootstd tests to run properly. > > > > > > > > These mmc*.img are generated in test_ut.py (see setup_cros_image() for > > > > example) > > > > > > > > So, In order to only run the bootstd tests, I think we need to to run: > > > > > > > > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut > > > > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k bootstd > > > > > > > > Then we can just call: > > > > > > > > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k bootstd > > > > > > Ok after installing missing dependencies and running test_ut tests I have > > > less > > > errors but there are still bootflow errors. See the test-log attached. > > > I suppose all the tests should pass, right? > > > > > > > How are you running the tests? This is described in the docs. Search for > > 'tests'. > > > > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/tests_sandbox.html#running-sandbox-tests-directly > > As discussed in the email thread running test directly does not work and > segfault for the bootflow command. > We have to run it under the test.py command to makes it work. > > The log I sent was for the following command: > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut > > The two errors on bootflow on master are: > Test: bootflow_cmd_menu: bootflow.c > test/boot/bootflow.c:673, bootflow_cmd_menu(): 0 == run_command("bootflow > menu", 0): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1) > > test/boot/bootflow.c:718, bootflow_scan_menu(): console: > Expected 'Selected: Armbian', > got '<no-more-output>' > > Tom do you face the same errors? If that's the case we should fix these.
No, I can do: $ git clean -dfx $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut And the result is: =============== 872 passed, 1 skipped, 608 deselected, 13398 warnings in 55.73s =============== And this is on top of tree master right now. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
