On 5 January 2015 at 15:31, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>
>
> On 05.01.15 16:06, Andrew Wafaa wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8 September 2014 at 11:46, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08.09.14 10:00, Guillaume Gardet wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Le 08/09/2014 09:07, Matwey V. Kornilov a écrit :
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about adding couple of test cases for ARM to our
>>>>> openQA? I remember two cases when our JeOSes were broken independently
>>>>> of hardware. First one, when u-boot was looking for boot.scr in wrong
>>>>> place, second one, when the kernel 3.14 was broken due to bug in depmod.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, I think that we could test JeOS-vexpress and JeOS-vexpress64 for
>>>>> armv7 and aarch64 using qemu emulation (I know that it is slow ;) )
>>>>>
>>>>> Then just check that the image is booted for the first time, and for
>>>>> the second time, controlling the process through serial console.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment I have no idea how many efforts are needed to implement
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good to me but I have zero knowledge on openQA.
>>>
>>> Yup. Definitely a really good idea. I think the easiest target machine
>>> to get working with our setup is the BeagleBoard emulation, as it runs
>>> the whole stack including u-boot.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that one is downstream in the Linaro qemu fork [1]. I
>>> tried to get it working for that exact use case a while ago and needed
>>> the patch below on top of ac0bfdb9c.
>>>
>>> Good luck :)
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> [1] git://git.linaro.org/qemu/qemu-linaro.git
>>>
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c b/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c
>>> index 9e78cc3..3df9ca1 100644
>>> --- a/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c
>>> +++ b/hw/misc/omap3_boot.c
>>> @@ -684,8 +684,7 @@ static int omap3_mmc_raw_boot(BlockDriverState *bs,
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> - result = (boot->state == done);
>>> - free(boot);
>>> + result = omap3_boot_finish(boot);
>>> }
>>> return result;
>>> }
>>> diff --git a/hw/misc/twl4030.c b/hw/misc/twl4030.c
>>> index 56d91cb..56a38f9 100644
>>> --- a/hw/misc/twl4030.c
>>> +++ b/hw/misc/twl4030.c
>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ typedef void (*twl4030_write_func)(TWL4030NodeState *s,
>>> #define TYPE_TWL4030NODE "twl4030-node"
>>> #define TWL4030NODE(obj) OBJECT_CHECK(TWL4030NodeState, (obj),
>>> TYPE_TWL4030NODE)
>>>
>>> -typedef struct TWL4030NodeState {
>>> +struct TWL4030NodeState {
>>> I2CSlave parent_obj;
>>> int firstbyte;
>>> uint8_t reg;
>>> @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ typedef struct TWL4030NodeState {
>>> TWL4030State *twl4030;
>>>
>>> uint8 reg_data[256];
>>> -} TWL4030NodeState;
>>> +};
>>>
>>> struct TWL4030State {
>>> qemu_irq irq1;
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscr...@opensuse.org
>>> To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+ow...@opensuse.org
>>>
>>
>> Does anyone know if this patch is still required, and what else needs
>> to be done to get OpenQA to work? I'm being shamed by our illustrious
>> Chairman with regards to OpenQA and as a matter of pride I'd like to
>> get OpenQA working with ARM - also Linaro are discussing whether to
>> use OpenQA or not.
>
> I'm not sure you really want to base on the Beagle emulation for OpenQA.
> The "virt" machine in QEMU would make a much nicer target, especially
> since it also supports KVM properly. The only missing link to get
> everything properly running is a working virtual PCI host bridge so that
> we can use PCI VGA adapters and USB for keyboard/mouse.
>
OK that works for me, I'm not fussed about what the platform is. All
I'm after is getting functional OpenQA tests for ARM. So if that means
using a generic platform then great.
> Writing such an emulation is on my todo list, but I'd be more than happy
> if someone else beats me to it ;).
>
One of the many things I on that growing list I guess? Thanks for the
info and I'll see what can happen.
> However, as for your original question:
>
> Peter, did I ever send you the patch above?
>
>
> Alex
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-arm+unsubscr...@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-arm+ow...@opensuse.org
