Hi Aristo, On 2026-07-21T15:21:05, Aristo Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > test: fit: cover mkimage load address overlap detection > > Add a test that mkimage rejects a FIT image whose configuration > references a kernel and an FDT with the same load address, and that > the error message names the offending configuration and images. > > Also add a companion test for the intended escape hatch: two images > may use the same load address as long as no single configuration > references both of them. Only one configuration is selected at > runtime, so such images never coexist in memory. This mirrors the TI > K3 tispl layout after commit c85bf61b14f9 ("arm: k3: select tifsstub > via board_fit_config_name_match"), where each security state has its > own configuration and all tifsstub variants share one load address. > > Signed-off-by: Aristo Chen <[email protected]> > > test/py/tests/test_fit_mkimage_validate.py | 134 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 134 insertions(+)
> diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_fit_mkimage_validate.py > b/test/py/tests/test_fit_mkimage_validate.py > @@ -160,3 +160,137 @@ def test_fit_auto_basename_dotted_directory(ubman, > dtb_relpath, expected_desc): > + assert result.returncode != 0, "mkimage should fail due to memory > overlap" > + assert "has overlapping load regions" in result.stderr > + # Check that it identifies the specific overlapping components > + assert "kernel@1" in result.stderr and "fdt@1" in result.stderr The commit message says the error message names the offending configuration and images, but the test only checks the two image names. Please can you also assert that 'conf@1' appears in stderr, so the configuration-name part is covered - otherwise a regression that dropped the configuration name would go unnoticed. Regards, Simon
