On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 04:16:34AM +0800, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi, > > On 29 August 2017 at 22:16, Rob Clark <robdcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:57 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:26:48PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > > > I would add command > >>> > > > bootefi selftest.efi > >>> > > > to run the tests and provide the python wrapper code to add it to > >>> > > > the > >>> > > > test suite. > >>> > > > >>> > > I think that's a great idea, yes. > >>> > I wonder how far we are from running UEFI tests (either the official > >>> > ones, or I seem to remember hearing about some other test suite which > >>> > didn't require UEFI shell)? > >>> > >>> Let's ask Leif, Ard and Dong. > >>> > >>> The official test suite definitely needs the UEFI Shell. Is the suite > >>> publicly available by now? > >> > >> In binary form, you can access it already from the links on > >> http://uefi.org/testtools > >> > >> Yes, 2.5 is latest release. No this is not a restriction ... the SCT > >> releases have been lagging the specification releases a fair bit. > >> > >> The 2.5a package contains AARCH64, IA32 and X64 support (not ARM). > >> Not that it couldn't contain ARM, it just hasn't been packaged. > >> > >>> > That seems more useful long term than re-inventing comprehensive UEFI > >>> > test suite. (Also, beyond just running shim/fallback/grub, I don't > >>> > really have time to invent new tests for the stack of efi_loader > >>> > patches I have.) > >>> > >>> Yes and no - it depends on the availability of the official suite :/. > >> > >> UEFI SCT is not yet open source/free software. Obviously, this is > >> something Linaro has been lobbying for since day one of our > >> involvement. There used to be little understanding for this, but that > >> attitude has shifted substantially. > > > > So, if/until UEFI SCT is not an option, what about: > > > > https://01.org/linux-uefi-validation > > > > (thx to pjones for pointing that out to me) > > Well in any case I'm not looking for a large functional test suite at > this stage. It certainly could be useful, but not as a replacement for > unit tests. The latter is for fast verification (so that everyone can > run it as part of 'make tests') and easy identification of the > location of bugs.
I want to chime in here. Unless we're talking hours of time, if "make tests" takes 5 minutes to run, but that includes doing some sort of full validation suite to the relevant EFI code, that seems like a win to me. And if someone else is responsible for the contents of the tests and we just have to confirm our expected results, that's an even bigger win. -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot