Hi Marek,
On Fri, 26 Jul 2024 at 08:54, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Tue, 9 Jul 2024 at 03:24, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Marek,
On Sun, 7 Jul 2024 at 01:55, Marek Vasut marex@denx.de wrote:
On 6/27/24 10:19 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Marek,
Hi,
>>> Add new binman etype which allows signing both the SPL and fitImage sections >>> of i.MX8M flash.bin using CST. There are multiple DT properties which govern >>> the signing process, nxp,loader-address is the only mandatory one which sets >>> the SPL signature start address without the imx8mimage header, this should be >>> SPL text base. The key material can be configured using optional DT properties >>> nxp,srk-table, nxp,csf-crt, nxp,img-crt, all of which default the key material >>> names generated by CST tool scripts. The nxp,unlock property can be used to >>> unlock CAAM access in SPL section. >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Tim Harvey tharvey@gateworks.com >>> Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut marex@denx.de >> >> Applied the series, thanks. > > This lacks tests - can you please add sufficient tests in ftest.py to > get the cover coverage back to 100%? Please try 'binman test -T' to > see this.
Any thoughts on this, please? At present -master is broken for one file and -next has three problems.
It is in the pipeline.
What exactly is the error you observe ?
When I run binman test -T , I get a lot of output, but no error reports?
Sorry I somehow missed this email.
The tests are in ftest.py - there are lots of examples, e.g. testXilinxBootgenSigning() - commit d8a2d3b29
This seems to be testing some out-of-tree tool , not binman ?
It is testing the etype, which needs the tool to be present, yes, You can use 'binman tool -f' to fetch tools if you want to try that one.
We have gone past RC1, so I'm just checking how this is going?
Are you going to be able to get this test in soon?
Basically you need to create a test .dts file that uses your entry type, then use it in the test code. You can check error handling as well, e.g. by having an invalid dts too if needed.
If you run 'binman test -T' you will see the code-coverage problem. You may need to fetch tools with 'binman tool -f missing' to get all the tools*:
Coverage error: 96%, but should be 100% ValueError: Test coverage failure
It is normally much easier to add an etype using a test than to test it by using it 'for real', since you don't need to worry about the U-Boot integration.
Huh ...
Regards, Simon