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
> > > sandb
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 11:06:48AM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 12/18/19 9:22 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> > > On 12/17/19 8:47 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > > > This test verifies the implementation of the 'b
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 b
On 12/18/19 9:22 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
On 12/17/19 8:47 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
This test verifies the implementation of the 'bootm' extension that
handles UEFI binaries inside FIT images (enabled via CONFIG_BOOT
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote:
> On 12/17/19 8:47 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
> > This test verifies the implementation of the 'bootm' extension that
> > handles UEFI binaries inside FIT images (enabled via CONFIG_BOOTM_EFI).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cristian
On 12/17/19 8:47 AM, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote:
This test verifies the implementation of the 'bootm' extension that
handles UEFI binaries inside FIT images (enabled via CONFIG_BOOTM_EFI).
Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea
---
test/py/tests/test_efi_fit.py | 233
This test verifies the implementation of the 'bootm' extension that
handles UEFI binaries inside FIT images (enabled via CONFIG_BOOTM_EFI).
Signed-off-by: Cristian Ciocaltea
---
test/py/tests/test_efi_fit.py | 233 ++
1 file changed, 233 insertions(+)
create mode
7 matches
Mail list logo
