On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 at 16:13, Alex Bennée <[email protected]> wrote: > > The full quanta_gsj test would have caught the regression caused by > the WFxT implementation and isn't that slow (<60s) it needs to be > gated. > > Suggested-by: Thomas Huth <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]> > --- > tests/functional/arm/test_quanta_gsj.py | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/functional/arm/test_quanta_gsj.py > b/tests/functional/arm/test_quanta_gsj.py > index cb0545f7bfa..0c0f5d85874 100755 > --- a/tests/functional/arm/test_quanta_gsj.py > +++ b/tests/functional/arm/test_quanta_gsj.py > @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ class EmcraftSf2Machine(LinuxKernelTest): > '20200711-gsj-qemu-0/nuvoton-npcm730-gsj.dtb'), > '3249b2da787d4b9ad4e61f315b160abfceb87b5e1895a7ce898ce7f40c8d4045') > > - @skipSlowTest() > def test_arm_quanta_gsj(self): > self.set_machine('quanta-gsj') > image_path = self.uncompress(self.ASSET_IMAGE, format='gz') > -- > 2.47.3
It looks like this was originally marked skipSlowtest() as the evolution of what was originally commit b6eea069ab marking it as AVOCADO_TIMEOUT_EXPECTED because of observed timeouts. I guess we'll see if we fixed whatever that flakiness was. Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> (We do want not only to avoid running tests that are slow in themselves but also to avoid accumulating a large number of tests that are individually only moderately slow but together add up to the complete run being slow. But I think we can afford this one.) The other argument against using quanta-gsj as our test here is that as discussed as part of a recent docs update: https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/[email protected]/ it's no longer supported by OpenBMC. I didn't get any response from the Nuvoton maintainers in that thread, but I kind of favour deprecating the machine type in QEMU. thanks -- PMM
