On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 09:02:38AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Neil,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 08:44, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
On 29/08/2024 14:17, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 at 04:43, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 22:25, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Peter,
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 12:14, Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Simon,
> With Labgrid we don't need to specify the various methods, except for > the console, which simply calls labgrid-client. > > This allows supporting any boards in your lab, without adding per-board > configuration to these hooks. > > Provide ellesmere files as an example.
What's ellesmere?
It is a lake but also the name of a computer.
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org > --- > > Changes in v4: > - Support pytest fully with dual-build boards like Beagleplay > > Changes in v3: > - Update scripts for latest version of Labgrid integration > - Add poweroff.none and poweron.none > - Provide -n flag when querying board info > - Target the grpc version of Labgrid which is now in -master > - Update README to cover the changes > > Changes in v2: > - Make use of the common script (only) to set bin_dir > > README.md | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe that should be in a separate labsgrid readme?
My hope is that Labgrid becomes the normal way of running these tests,
Generally I agree with automated testing platforms, I think <insert you're preferred platform here> makes sense, there's a bunch like Linaro and a bunch in the arm ecosystem use LAVA [1] and there's a bunch more that I'm aware of.
I am somewhat familiar with LAVA and I believe it can be used to test U-Boot, although I need to learn how. Looking at a test run [2] for beaglebone black I see that it is using a recent kernel but the U-Boot seems to be older.
Does it make sense, of course at some point in the future post this being merged, make sense to look at a general way of making it easier to plugin these sort of HW test platforms using this as a basis? I ask mostly because putting a bunch of my devices into some sort of platform can auto test things and of course everyone has an opinion to which is the best one :-P
Yes. I had heard from Tom that Labgrid is the new hotness for now. Having dug into it I believe it is a good solution, although it can certainly be improved to handle scale better.
Anyway, IMO the current test hooks are not a great solution, just because the configuration is spread all over the place and it relies on lots of little shell scripts. So I believe that the Labgrid integration is a closer to where we want to be with others that come along.
I'd say all those scripts are actually here to ease integration with any system, booting U-Boot and Linux are two different beasts.
That's fine, go ahead and use the scripts. My point is that Labgrid doesn't need them and in fact it makes everything pretty painful if we try to use all of them.
I guess I really need to clean-up and post my former co-workers scripts as I strongly disagree with that statement. The only "painful" part is the shared pain, regardless of framework, for "put blob $X at location $Y", which I believe you abstract out in to python?