On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:56:00AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 12/18/19 9:22 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
- };
+}; +'''
+@pytest.mark.boardspec('sandbox')
This test looks ok in principal. But why should we restrict it to the sandbox?
Let me see how this should work on real hardware, I'm going to test on qemu for the moment.
Device trees cannot be used in conjunction with ACPI tables when booting via UEFI. Currently this concerns only x86 and x86_64 but Phytec is working on an arm64 board which shall provide an ACPI table. So you probably want to check CONFIG_GENERATE_ACPI_TABLE instead of the board type, e.g.
@pytest.mark.notbuildconfigspec('generate_acpi_table')
Thanks for the hint!
For some strange reason, whatever I put in the 'notbuildconfigspec' marker causes the test to be skipped:
[-] Section: test_efi_fit TIME: NOW: 2019/12/18 17:33:14.976576 TIME: SINCE-PREV: 0:00:00.192132 TIME: SINCE-START: 0:00:00.192132 SKIPPED: ('[...]/uboot/test/py/conftest.py', 463, 'Skipped: .config feature "bootm_efi" enabled')
I don't really understand the connection to 'bootm_efi'. If I comment out the 'bootm_efi' marker, the reported status becomes:
SKIPPED: ('[].../uboot/test/py/conftest.py', 463, 'Skipped: .config feature "cmd_bootefi_hello_compile" enabled')
So it seems 'notbuildconfigspec' gets its parameter from the first active 'buildconfigspec' statement. This is my current test:
#@pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('bootm_efi') @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_bootefi_hello_compile') #@pytest.mark.notbuildconfigspec('generate_acpi_table') @pytest.mark.notbuildconfigspec('fake_item') @pytest.mark.requiredtool('dtc')
Best regards
Heinrich