On Fri, 12 Jul 2024 13:51:04 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2024 at 02:43:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > On Mon, 8 Jul 2024 17:17:32 +0530 > > Sunil V L <suni...@ventanamicro.com> wrote: > > > > > This series adds few updates to RISC-V ACPI namespace for virt platform. > > > Additionally, it has patches to enable ACPI table testing for RISC-V. > > > > > > 1) PCI Link devices need to be created outside the scope of the PCI root > > > complex to ensure correct probe ordering by the OS. This matches the > > > example given in ACPI spec as well. > > > > > > 2) Add PLIC and APLIC as platform devices as well to ensure probing > > > order as per BRS spec [1] requirement. > > > > > > 3) BRS spec requires RISC-V to use new ACPI ID for the generic UART. So, > > > update the HID of the UART. > > > > > > 4) Enabled ACPI tables tests for RISC-V which were originally part of > > > [2] but couldn't get merged due to updates required in the expected AML > > > files. I think combining those patches with this series makes it easier > > > to merge since expected AML files are updated. > > > > > > [1] - https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-brs > > > [2] - https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2024-06/msg04734.html > > > > > > > btw: CI is not happy about series, see: > > https://gitlab.com/imammedo/qemu/-/pipelines/1371119552 > > also 'cross-i686-tci' job routinely timeouts on bios-tables-test > > but we still keep adding more tests to it. > > We should either bump timeout to account for slowness or > > disable bios-tables-test for that job. > > Asumming the test is functionally correct, and not hanging, then bumping > the timeout is the right answer. You can do this in the meson.build > file I think test is fine, since once in a while it passes (I guess it depends on runner host/load) Overal job timeout is 1h, but that's not what fails. What I see is, the test aborts after 10min timeout. it's likely we hit boot_sector_test()/acpi_find_rsdp_address_uefi() timeout. That's what we should try to bump. PS: I've just started the job with 5min bump, lets see if it is enough. > We should never disable tests only in CI, because non-CI users > are just as likely to hit timeouts. > > > With regards, > Daniel
