[PATCH v5 0/4] EFI: Reset system after capsule-on-disk
Hi,
Here is the 5th version of the reset after capsule-on-disk. This version includes the test updates for this new behavior. I finally split the test update patches into 3 parts. ConsoleBase::run_command() update [2/4], ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned() update [3/4] and the test code update. The last part is merged into the reset after capsule-on-disk patch [4/4].
The reset after completing the capsule-on-disk is stated in the UEFI specification 2.9, section 8.5.5 "Delivery of Capsules via file on Mass Storage device" as below,
In all cases that a capsule is identified for processing the system is restarted after capsule processing is completed.
Thank you,
---
Masami Hiramatsu (4): efi_loader: use efi_update_capsule_firmware() for capsule on disk test/py: Handle expected reset by command test/py: Handle expected reboot while booting sandbox efi_loader: test/py: Reset system after capsule update on disk
lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 20 +++ .../test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py | 37 ++++-- test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 115 ++++++++++++-------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 + 4 files changed, 115 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
-- Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Since the efi_update_capsule() represents the UpdateCapsule() runtime service, it has to handle the capsule flags and update ESRT. However the capsule-on-disk doesn't need to care about such things.
Thus, the capsule-on-disk should use the efi_capsule_update_firmware() directly instead of calling efi_update_capsule().
This means the roles of the efi_update_capsule() and capsule-on-disk are different. We have to keep the efi_update_capsule() for providing runtime service API at boot time.
Suggested-by: AKASHI Takahiro takahiro.akashi@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org Reviewed-by: Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de --- Changes in v4: - Update patch description. --- lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c index f4519c7317..d8141176df 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c @@ -1118,7 +1118,7 @@ efi_status_t efi_launch_capsules(void) index = 0; ret = efi_capsule_read_file(files[i], &capsule); if (ret == EFI_SUCCESS) { - ret = EFI_CALL(efi_update_capsule(&capsule, 1, 0)); + ret = efi_capsule_update_firmware(capsule); if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS) log_err("Applying capsule %ls failed\n", files[i]);
Add wait_for_reboot optional argument to ConsoleBase::run_command() so that it can handle an expected reset by command execution.
This is useful if a command will reset the sandbox while testing such commands, e.g. run_command("reset", wait_for_reboot = True)
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org --- Changes in v5: - Split the wait-for-boot-prompt code as an internal function so that it is able to be shared with ensure_spawned(). - Fix wait_for_reboot parameter description. --- test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py index 384fd53c65..afae07d9cc 100644 --- a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +++ b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py @@ -139,8 +139,53 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): self.p.close() self.logstream.close()
+ def wait_for_boot_prompt(self): + """Wait for the boot up until command prompt. This is for internal use only. + """ + try: + bcfg = self.config.buildconfig + config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y' + config_spl_serial = bcfg.get('config_spl_serial', 'n') == 'y' + env_spl_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl_skipped', False) + env_spl2_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl2_skipped', True) + + if config_spl and config_spl_serial and not env_spl_skipped: + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] + + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + if not env_spl2_skipped: + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl2_signon] + + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL2 console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_main_signon] + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + self.u_boot_version_string = self.p.after + while True: + m = self.p.expect([self.prompt_compiled, + pattern_stop_autoboot_prompt] + self.bad_patterns) + if m == 0: + break + if m == 1: + self.p.send(' ') + continue + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 2]) + + except Exception as ex: + self.log.error(str(ex)) + self.cleanup_spawn() + raise + finally: + self.log.timestamp() + def run_command(self, cmd, wait_for_echo=True, send_nl=True, - wait_for_prompt=True): + wait_for_prompt=True, wait_for_reboot=False): """Execute a command via the U-Boot console.
The command is always sent to U-Boot. @@ -168,6 +213,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): wait_for_prompt: Boolean indicating whether to wait for the command prompt to be sent by U-Boot. This typically occurs immediately after the command has been executed. + wait_for_reboot: Boolean indication whether to wait for the + reboot U-Boot. If this sets True, wait_for_prompt must also + be True.
Returns: If wait_for_prompt == False: @@ -202,11 +250,14 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) if not wait_for_prompt: return - m = self.p.expect([self.prompt_compiled] + self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - self.at_prompt = False - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + if wait_for_reboot: + self.wait_for_boot_prompt() + else: + m = self.p.expect([self.prompt_compiled] + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + self.at_prompt = False + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) self.at_prompt = True self.at_prompt_logevt = self.logstream.logfile.cur_evt # Only strip \r\n; space/TAB might be significant if testing @@ -349,41 +400,7 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): if not self.config.gdbserver: self.p.timeout = 30000 self.p.logfile_read = self.logstream - bcfg = self.config.buildconfig - config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y' - config_spl_serial = bcfg.get('config_spl_serial', - 'n') == 'y' - env_spl_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl_skipped', - False) - env_spl2_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl2_skipped', - True) - if config_spl and config_spl_serial and not env_spl_skipped: - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] + - self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) - if not env_spl2_skipped: - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl2_signon] + - self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL2 console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_main_signon] + self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) - self.u_boot_version_string = self.p.after - while True: - m = self.p.expect([self.prompt_compiled, - pattern_stop_autoboot_prompt] + self.bad_patterns) - if m == 0: - break - if m == 1: - self.p.send(' ') - continue - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 2]) + self.wait_for_boot_prompt() self.at_prompt = True self.at_prompt_logevt = self.logstream.logfile.cur_evt except Exception as ex:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org --- Changes in v5: - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. --- test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py index afae07d9cc..3938ec1302 100644 --- a/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +++ b/test/py/u_boot_console_base.py @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): self.p.close() self.logstream.close()
- def wait_for_boot_prompt(self): + def wait_for_boot_prompt(self, loop_num = 1): """Wait for the boot up until command prompt. This is for internal use only. """ try: @@ -149,22 +149,24 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): env_spl_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl_skipped', False) env_spl2_skipped = self.config.env.get('env__spl2_skipped', True)
- if config_spl and config_spl_serial and not env_spl_skipped: - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] + - self.bad_patterns) + while loop_num > 0: + loop_num -= 1 + if config_spl and config_spl_serial and not env_spl_skipped: + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] + + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + if not env_spl2_skipped: + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl2_signon] + + self.bad_patterns) + if m != 0: + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL2 console: ' + + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) + m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_main_signon] + self.bad_patterns) if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) - if not env_spl2_skipped: - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl2_signon] + - self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on SPL2 console: ' + + raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) - m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_main_signon] + self.bad_patterns) - if m != 0: - raise Exception('Bad pattern found on console: ' + - self.bad_pattern_ids[m - 1]) self.u_boot_version_string = self.p.after while True: m = self.p.expect([self.prompt_compiled, @@ -372,7 +374,7 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): finally: self.p.timeout = orig_timeout
- def ensure_spawned(self): + def ensure_spawned(self, expect_reset=False): """Ensure a connection to a correctly running U-Boot instance.
This may require spawning a new Sandbox process or resetting target @@ -381,7 +383,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): This is an internal function and should not be called directly.
Args: - None. + expect_reset: Boolean indication whether this boot is expected + to be reset while the 1st boot process after main boot before + prompt. False by default.
Returns: Nothing. @@ -400,7 +404,11 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): if not self.config.gdbserver: self.p.timeout = 30000 self.p.logfile_read = self.logstream - self.wait_for_boot_prompt() + if expect_reset: + loop_num = 2 + else: + loop_num = 1 + self.wait_for_boot_prompt(loop_num = loop_num) self.at_prompt = True self.at_prompt_logevt = self.logstream.logfile.cur_evt except Exception as ex: @@ -433,10 +441,10 @@ class ConsoleBase(object): pass self.p = None
- def restart_uboot(self): + def restart_uboot(self, expect_reset=False): """Shut down and restart U-Boot.""" self.cleanup_spawn() - self.ensure_spawned() + self.ensure_spawned(expect_reset)
def get_spawn_output(self): """Return the start-up output from U-Boot diff --git a/test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py b/test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py index 7e1eb0e0b4..ce4ca7e55e 100644 --- a/test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py +++ b/test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py @@ -57,11 +57,14 @@ class ConsoleSandbox(ConsoleBase): cmd += self.sandbox_flags return Spawn(cmd, cwd=self.config.source_dir)
- def restart_uboot_with_flags(self, flags): + def restart_uboot_with_flags(self, flags, expect_reset=False): """Run U-Boot with the given command-line flags
Args: flags: List of flags to pass, each a string + expect_reset: Boolean indication whether this boot is expected + to be reset while the 1st boot process after main boot before + prompt. False by default.
Returns: A u_boot_spawn.Spawn object that is attached to U-Boot. @@ -69,7 +72,7 @@ class ConsoleSandbox(ConsoleBase):
try: self.sandbox_flags = flags - return self.restart_uboot() + return self.restart_uboot(expect_reset) finally: self.sandbox_flags = []
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Regards, Simon
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Best regards
Heinrich
Regards, Simon
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Regards, Simon
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Regards, Simon
Am 27. Februar 2022 20:11:01 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
How does this relate to your thoughts about this patch?
The patch enables testing capsule updates including resets. This does not stop running the tests on the sandbox.
Why do you suggest sandbox specific quirks in capsule updates?
Best regards
Heinrich
Regards, Simon
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:21, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
Am 27. Februar 2022 20:11:01 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > > Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > boot logo before prompt correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > --- > Changes in v5: > - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > --- > test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
How does this relate to your thoughts about this patch?
The patch enables testing capsule updates including resets. This does not stop running the tests on the sandbox.
Why do you suggest sandbox specific quirks in capsule updates?
sandbox-specific but in any case I find the tone of that statement offensive and misleading. I have asked you before to avoid this sort of thing on the mailing list. Sandbox is what we use for unit tests.
How is the test run at present on sandbox? My understanding is that you want sandbox to rely on the pytest framework to work...do I have that wrong?
Regards, Simon
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:51, Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 12:21, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
Am 27. Februar 2022 20:11:01 MEZ schrieb Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: >> >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main >> boot logo before prompt correctly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org >> --- >> Changes in v5: >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. >> --- >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
How does this relate to your thoughts about this patch?
The patch enables testing capsule updates including resets. This does not stop running the tests on the sandbox.
Why do you suggest sandbox specific quirks in capsule updates?
sandbox-specific but in any case I find the tone of that statement offensive and misleading. I have asked you before to avoid this sort of thing on the mailing list. Sandbox is what we use for unit tests.
How is the test run at present on sandbox? My understanding is that you want sandbox to rely on the pytest framework to work...do I have that wrong?
Also I'd really appreciate it if you could review Takahiro's series and help get it landed. It has been languishing for ages.
Regards, Simon
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > > Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > boot logo before prompt correctly. > > Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > --- > Changes in v5: > - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > --- > test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Regards, Simon
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: >> >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main >> boot logo before prompt correctly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org >> --- >> Changes in v5: >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. >> --- >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here, or maybe I misread which sets of tests this is ultimately for. Functionality wise, I'm talking about the capsule update functionality, and I want to ensure that we can have something under test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/ to update U-Boot for a platform. And that test should be abstracted such that it can run on (a) sandbox (b) qemu as platformX (c) platformX in a HW lab. If that doesn't require changes under test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py then, great! I've just been confused.
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 06:48, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote: > > On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Masami, > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > >> > >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > >> boot logo before prompt correctly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > >> --- > >> Changes in v5: > >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > >> --- > >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >> > > > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back? > > Dear Simon, > > The discussion is in > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820... > > You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see > the reset driver." > > We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in > the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here, or maybe I misread which sets of tests this is ultimately for. Functionality wise, I'm talking about the capsule update functionality, and I want to ensure that we can have something under test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/ to update U-Boot for a platform. And that test should be abstracted such that it can run on (a) sandbox (b) qemu as platformX (c) platformX in a HW lab. If that doesn't require changes under test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py then, great! I've just been confused.
My point is that we should start with a test that runs on sandbox. It should be a unit test, i.e. 'ut xxx' and not require changes in the console handling and should use the sysreset driver to operate. This should test *all* the code of the new feature, including failure modes.
As to qemu and other platforms, they are really just going to be happy-path tests. I suggest splitting the reset functionality out so that it happens after the update is ready. Perhaps it is possible for the test itself to be in control of the reset? We don't really need to test that a board can reset, right? If we do, then we are going to need some magic like this patch, but it is quite messy.
So please, unit test first.
Regards, Simon
Hi Simon,
2022年2月28日(月) 22:56 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 06:48, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Heinrich, > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote: > > > > On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > > > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > > >> > > >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > > >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > > >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > > >> boot logo before prompt correctly. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > > >> --- > > >> Changes in v5: > > >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > > >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > > >> --- > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > >> > > > > > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back? > > > > Dear Simon, > > > > The discussion is in > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820... > > > > You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see > > the reset driver." > > > > We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in > > the referenced thread. > > Why? > > The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of > Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here, or maybe I misread which sets of tests this is ultimately for. Functionality wise, I'm talking about the capsule update functionality, and I want to ensure that we can have something under test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/ to update U-Boot for a platform. And that test should be abstracted such that it can run on (a) sandbox (b) qemu as platformX (c) platformX in a HW lab. If that doesn't require changes under test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py then, great! I've just been confused.
My point is that we should start with a test that runs on sandbox. It should be a unit test, i.e. 'ut xxx' and not require changes in the console handling and should use the sysreset driver to operate. This should test *all* the code of the new feature, including failure modes.
Hmm, but the capsule update on disk requires to prepare - the capsule file image which is properly composed - the disk which has an EFI system partition - the EFI variables required for the capsule update on disk I guess this is the main reason why the test is written by the script...
Thank you,
As to qemu and other platforms, they are really just going to be happy-path tests. I suggest splitting the reset functionality out so that it happens after the update is ready. Perhaps it is possible for the test itself to be in control of the reset? We don't really need to test that a board can reset, right? If we do, then we are going to need some magic like this patch, but it is quite messy.
So please, unit test first.
Regards, Simon
Hi Masami,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 07:47, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
2022年2月28日(月) 22:56 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 06:48, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 02:45:36PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Heinrich, > > > > On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote: > > > > > > On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > > > > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > > > >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > > > >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > > > >> boot logo before prompt correctly. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > > > >> --- > > > >> Changes in v5: > > > >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > > > >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > > > >> --- > > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > > > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > > > >> > > > > > > > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back? > > > > > > Dear Simon, > > > > > > The discussion is in > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820... > > > > > > You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see > > > the reset driver." > > > > > > We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in > > > the referenced thread. > > > > Why? > > > > The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of > > Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later. > > Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and > then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here, or maybe I misread which sets of tests this is ultimately for. Functionality wise, I'm talking about the capsule update functionality, and I want to ensure that we can have something under test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/ to update U-Boot for a platform. And that test should be abstracted such that it can run on (a) sandbox (b) qemu as platformX (c) platformX in a HW lab. If that doesn't require changes under test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py then, great! I've just been confused.
My point is that we should start with a test that runs on sandbox. It should be a unit test, i.e. 'ut xxx' and not require changes in the console handling and should use the sysreset driver to operate. This should test *all* the code of the new feature, including failure modes.
Hmm, but the capsule update on disk requires to prepare
- the capsule file image which is properly composed
- the disk which has an EFI system partition
- the EFI variables required for the capsule update on disk
I guess this is the main reason why the test is written by the script...
Yes and that is fine, we do that sort of thing in many places. But once the pre-conditions are ready, you should be able to run the unit test from start to finish.
If you have specific problems, please let me know and I can help.
Thank you,
As to qemu and other platforms, they are really just going to be happy-path tests. I suggest splitting the reset functionality out so that it happens after the update is ready. Perhaps it is possible for the test itself to be in control of the reset? We don't really need to test that a board can reset, right? If we do, then we are going to need some magic like this patch, but it is quite messy.
So please, unit test first.
Regards, SImon
Hi Simon,
2022年2月28日(月) 6:45 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote:
On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: >> >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main >> boot logo before prompt correctly. >> >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org >> --- >> Changes in v5: >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. >> --- >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) >> > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Dear Simon,
The discussion is in https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820...
You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see the reset driver."
We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
I think this UEFI capsule update testcase is to check the capsule file generated by the tool can be handled as we expected. E.g. setting up the EFI variables and the capsule file is found in the specific directory in the ESP etc. (Note that this testcase doesn't check the capsule actually update the firmware itself... which can not be done by sandbox because updated firmware needs to be reloaded from the virtual storage.)
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
I agree with this point, yes, this changes the pytest ConsoleBase class for sandbox test. If this cause a problem if this is used for normal platform, it need to be changed.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
I'm not sure this part. What would you mean the 'outside influence'?
Thank you,
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Regards, Simon
-- Masami Hiramatsu
Hi Masami,
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 07:40, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Hi Simon,
2022年2月28日(月) 6:45 Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 13:58, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 12:11:01PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 11:14, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022 at 08:39:30AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Heinrich,
On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 at 01:22, Heinrich Schuchardt xypron.glpk@gmx.de wrote: > > On 2/26/22 19:37, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Masami, > > > > On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu > > masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote: > >> > >> Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), > >> ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() > >> so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main > >> boot logo before prompt correctly. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org > >> --- > >> Changes in v5: > >> - Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify > >> the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt. > >> --- > >> test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- > >> test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- > >> 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-) > >> > > > > Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back? > > Dear Simon, > > The discussion is in > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/164491595065.536855.9457820... > > You suggested: "We have a means to avoid actually doing the reset, see > the reset driver." > > We need a real reset on the sandbox and no fake reset as already said in > the referenced thread.
Why?
The fake reset is there for use by tests. We don't need this load of Python code at all for sandbox. We should worry about it later.
Well, isn't this going to make the tests more sandbox-centric then, and then need changes later to be able to test on real hardware?
Yes, but it keeps the sandbox case simple. At present the sandbox tests can run within U-Boot (see the 'ut' command) and I very much want to keep it that way. That is, after all, why I wrote the reset driver.
While tests on real hardware have value, I hope that all logic bugs are found on sandbox.
Yes, it's important to test the code in sandbox before testing it on hardware, to avoid "obvious" oops-it-broke changes, it's still very important to be able to easily run this on real hardware. Ideally, I hope to see updates to the pytest hook repository to flash the hardware via capsule, as well as running a more formal pytest on hardware. To
Can you be specific about what bugs you are trying to catch in that case? I am conscious of the nightmare that is Zephyr's thousands of QEMU-based tests that take 20 minutes to run in parallel on a 64-core machine, so I'd would like to make sure that real bugs are found in unit tests where possible.
I think this UEFI capsule update testcase is to check the capsule file generated by the tool can be handled as we expected. E.g. setting up the EFI variables and the capsule file is found in the specific directory in the ESP etc.
OK
(Note that this testcase doesn't check the capsule actually update the firmware itself... which can not be done by sandbox because updated firmware needs to be reloaded from the virtual storage.)
That can be done, if needed. See os_jump_to_file(). The Chromium OS test does this.
that end, is it not most important to make sandbox look like a real hardware platform, rather than adapt the test to know about special sandbox things? Or am I missing something here and the test shouldn't
The key thing is that sandbox runs essentially the same 'code under test' as the real board and that we can quickly verified (using the 'ut xxx' command) that it works. In this case, we want to run the EFI code under sandbox and make sure that it works.
need changes / special handling to support both sandbox and real hardware, with what you're suggesting?
The title of this patch refers to specific hacks in pytest to handle sandbox, doesn't it? So I think this is around the wrong way...that is in fact my objection. It simply should not be done that way, with special code in pytest, or whatever.
I agree with this point, yes, this changes the pytest ConsoleBase class for sandbox test. If this cause a problem if this is used for normal platform, it need to be changed.
I don't think you need this patch for sandbox, which is my point. I would rather simply not have it.
It should be possible to run 'ut xxx' and have the test run from start to finish, without any outside influence. Sandbox has a sysreset driver, just like any other board. We can make it do whatever we want...see sandbox_sysreset_request().
I'm not sure this part. What would you mean the 'outside influence'?
If you see this section it tells you how to run sandbox tests directly, without pytest:
https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/tests_sandbox.html#running-s...
It should be possible to run your tests this way on sandbox, without needing the pytest code. Of course there are exceptions, but most tests work this way and it seems to me that this one can also.
'Outside influence' means Python code getting involved.
Thank you,
We do use pytest to set things up beforehand, or to verify that things worked after the run, but we should not need it to even just run a unit test. In particular, it should not be necessary for sandbox to be restarted by an outside influence.
Regards, Simon
On Sat, Feb 26, 2022 at 11:37:20AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Masami,
On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:16, Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org wrote:
Add expected_reset optional argument to ConsoleBase::ensure_spawned(), ConsoleBase::restart_uboot() and ConsoleSandbox::restart_uboot_with_flags() so that it can handle a reset while the 1st boot process after main boot logo before prompt correctly.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org
Changes in v5:
- Rename parameter to expect_reset and update the description to clarify the reset will happen between main boot and the command prompt.
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- test/py/u_boot_console_sandbox.py | 7 ++++- 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
Didn't I already comment on this patch? Why did it come back?
Maybe I'm confused. This is so that we can "cold" reset sandbox so it behaves more consistently to other platforms, yes?
Add a cold reset soon after processing capsule update on disk. This is required in UEFI specification 2.9 Section 8.5.5 "Delivery of Capsules via file on Mass Storage device" as;
In all cases that a capsule is identified for processing the system is restarted after capsule processing is completed.
This also reports the result of each capsule update so that the user can notice that the capsule update has been succeeded or not from console log.
Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu masami.hiramatsu@linaro.org --- Changes in v5: - Update testcase because this will change the expected behavior. - Merge dfu_alt_info setting with showing esrt command. - Remove redundant assertion from the test update. Changes in v4: - Do not use sysreset because that is a warm reset. - Fix patch description. --- lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c | 18 +++++++++- .../test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py | 37 ++++++++++++-------- 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c index d8141176df..613b531b82 100644 --- a/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c +++ b/lib/efi_loader/efi_capsule.c @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ #include <env.h> #include <fdtdec.h> #include <fs.h> +#include <hang.h> #include <malloc.h> #include <mapmem.h> #include <sort.h> @@ -1120,8 +1121,11 @@ efi_status_t efi_launch_capsules(void) if (ret == EFI_SUCCESS) { ret = efi_capsule_update_firmware(capsule); if (ret != EFI_SUCCESS) - log_err("Applying capsule %ls failed\n", + log_err("Applying capsule %ls failed.\n", files[i]); + else + log_info("Applying capsule %ls succeeded.\n", + files[i]);
/* create CapsuleXXXX */ set_capsule_result(index, capsule, ret); @@ -1142,6 +1146,16 @@ efi_status_t efi_launch_capsules(void) free(files[i]); free(files);
- return ret; + /* + * UEFI spec requires to reset system after complete processing capsule + * update on the storage. + */ + log_info("Reboot after firmware update"); + /* Cold reset is required for loading the new firmware. */ + do_reset(NULL, 0, 0, NULL); + hang(); + /* not reach here */ + + return 0; } #endif /* CONFIG_EFI_CAPSULE_ON_DISK */ diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py b/test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py index 6e803f699f..1dcf1c70f4 100644 --- a/test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py +++ b/test/py/tests/test_efi_capsule/test_capsule_firmware.py @@ -143,13 +143,14 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object): 'fatls host 0:1 %s' % CAPSULE_INSTALL_DIR]) assert 'Test01' in ''.join(output)
- # reboot - u_boot_console.restart_uboot() - capsule_early = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_on_disk_early') capsule_auth = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_authenticate') + + # reboot + u_boot_console.restart_uboot(expect_reset = capsule_early) + with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 2-b, after reboot'): if not capsule_early: # make sure that dfu_alt_info exists even persistent variables @@ -162,7 +163,7 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object):
# need to run uefi command to initiate capsule handling output = u_boot_console.run_command( - 'env print -e Capsule0000') + 'env print -e Capsule0000', wait_for_reboot = True)
output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ 'host bind 0 %s' % disk_img, @@ -218,13 +219,14 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object): 'fatls host 0:1 %s' % CAPSULE_INSTALL_DIR]) assert 'Test02' in ''.join(output)
- # reboot - u_boot_console.restart_uboot() - capsule_early = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_on_disk_early') capsule_auth = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_authenticate') + + # reboot + u_boot_console.restart_uboot(expect_reset = capsule_early) + with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 3-b, after reboot'): if not capsule_early: # make sure that dfu_alt_info exists even persistent variables @@ -237,9 +239,12 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object):
# need to run uefi command to initiate capsule handling output = u_boot_console.run_command( - 'env print -e Capsule0000') + 'env print -e Capsule0000', wait_for_reboot = True)
- output = u_boot_console.run_command_list(['efidebug capsule esrt']) + # make sure the dfu_alt_info exists because it is required for making ESRT. + output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ + 'env set dfu_alt_info "sf 0:0=u-boot-bin raw 0x100000 0x50000;u-boot-env raw 0x150000 0x200000"', + 'efidebug capsule esrt'])
# ensure that EFI_FIRMWARE_IMAGE_TYPE_UBOOT_FIT_GUID is in the ESRT. assert 'AE13FF2D-9AD4-4E25-9AC8-6D80B3B22147' in ''.join(output) @@ -293,13 +298,14 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object): 'fatls host 0:1 %s' % CAPSULE_INSTALL_DIR]) assert 'Test03' in ''.join(output)
- # reboot - u_boot_console.restart_uboot() - capsule_early = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_on_disk_early') capsule_auth = u_boot_config.buildconfig.get( 'config_efi_capsule_authenticate') + + # reboot + u_boot_console.restart_uboot(expect_reset = capsule_early) + with u_boot_console.log.section('Test Case 4-b, after reboot'): if not capsule_early: # make sure that dfu_alt_info exists even persistent variables @@ -312,9 +318,12 @@ class TestEfiCapsuleFirmwareFit(object):
# need to run uefi command to initiate capsule handling output = u_boot_console.run_command( - 'env print -e Capsule0000') + 'env print -e Capsule0000', wait_for_reboot = True)
- output = u_boot_console.run_command_list(['efidebug capsule esrt']) + # make sure the dfu_alt_info exists because it is required for making ESRT. + output = u_boot_console.run_command_list([ + 'env set dfu_alt_info "sf 0:0=u-boot-bin raw 0x100000 0x50000;u-boot-env raw 0x150000 0x200000"', + 'efidebug capsule esrt'])
# ensure that EFI_FIRMWARE_IMAGE_TYPE_UBOOT_RAW_GUID is in the ESRT. assert 'E2BB9C06-70E9-4B14-97A3-5A7913176E3F' in ''.join(output)
participants (4)
-
Heinrich Schuchardt -
Masami Hiramatsu -
Simon Glass -
Tom Rini