Hi Michal,
[...]
Thanks for explaining. This got me to re-read the existing tests and while none of it is as clear as I would like, your example here is just as clear as the rest, so it's fine and I'll pick it up soon.
I see this patch is not yet applied on the repo, could you please let me know when this will be applied?
Ilias, since you've said you'd review TPM related patches, does this: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/1624340962-91190-1-git-send... work for you? Thanks.
I am not too familiar with the pytest framework we have, but couldn't we do this automatically? IOW instead of explicitly adding a variable, do a 'tpm info' and if that doesn't return a valid device, skip the tests.
Unfortunately not. Because imagine how this will work if you have tpm on board but there is bug in the driver that it is not probed. Then tpm info will return no device and all tests will be silently skipped.
Looking at tpm_info I think it's the other way around, isn't it ? tpm_info will call get_tpm(), which in theory will fail if there's no TPM probed or not present. So even in that case the self-tests will fail.
OTOH the 'tpm info' command just returns a CMD Success/Failure, so it's not easy to figure out if a TPM is indeed present or not without refactoring the cmdline interface. So I think this is reasonable for now
Acked-by: Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas@linaro.org
It would be much better it the test itself was designed from the beginning that you need to state that board has TPM. But it wasn't that's why we designed this patch in a way that you declare that you want to skip these tests which is OK.
It doesn't make any sense to go back and start to have multiple defconfigs for different configurations where all boards works quite well with one defconfig. That's why we enable TPM because it on SOM but we need to be able to disable these tests on others.
Thanks, Michal