On 6.12.2017 13:17, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 10:53:08AM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 5.12.2017 16:13, Tom Rini wrote: >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 01:10:47PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>> On 4.12.2017 18:14, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> On 12/04/2017 08:30 AM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 03:21:04PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>> On 4.12.2017 15:03, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 02:55:45PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1.12.2017 23:44, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 10:07:54AM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2017 08:19 AM, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 1.12.2017 16:06, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/01/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qemu for arm32/arm64 has a problem with time setup. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't it be preferable to fix the root cause? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Definitely that would be the best and IIRC I have tried to >>>>>>>>>>>> convince our >>>>>>>>>>>> qemu guy to do that but they have never done that. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> What is the exact failure condition? Is it simply that the test >>>>>>>>>>> is still >>>>>>>>>>> slightly too strict about which delays it accepts, or is sleep >>>>>>>>>>> outright >>>>>>>>>>> broken? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You can use command-line option -k to avoid some tests. For >>>>>>>>>>> example "-k not >>>>>>>>>>> sleep". That way, we don't have to hard-code the dependency into >>>>>>>>>>> the test >>>>>>>>>>> source. Depending on the root cause (issue in U-Boot, or issue in >>>>>>>>>>> just your >>>>>>>>>>> local version of qemu, or something that will never work) this >>>>>>>>>>> might be >>>>>>>>>>> better? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Even with the most recent relaxing of the sleep test requirements, >>>>>>>>>> I can >>>>>>>>>> still (depending on overall system load) have 'sleep' take too >>>>>>>>>> long, on >>>>>>>>>> QEMU. I think it might have been half a second slow, but I don't >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> the log handy anymore. Both locally and in travis we -k not sleep >>>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>>> of the qemu instances. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ok. By locally do you mean just using -k not sleep? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I have that in my CI scripts and similar. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Wouldn't be easier to keep this in uboot-test-hooks repo with other >>>>>>> target setting? >>>>>> >>>>>> Or do as you did did and mark the tests as not allowed for qemu, yes. >>>>>> >>>>>>> What we are trying to do is that our testing group will run these tests >>>>>>> for me that's why it is just easier for me to change local >>>>>>> uboot-test-hooks repo instead of communicate with them what -k not XXX >>>>>>> parameters to add to certain scripts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It means in loop they will just run all tests on qemu, local targets and >>>>>>> in boardfarm. It is probably not big deal to tell them to add -k not >>>>>>> sleep for all qemu runs but I know that for some i2c testing qemu >>>>>>> doesn't emulate these devices that's why these tests fails. And the >>>>>>> amount of tests which we shouldn't run on qemu will probably grow. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I'm still open to possibly tweaking the allowed variance in the >>>>>> sleep test. OTOH, if we just say "no QEMU" here, we can then go back to >>>>>> "sleep should be pretty darn accurate on HW" for the test too, and >>>>>> perhaps that's best. >>>>> >>>>> The fundamental problem of "over-sleeping" due to host system load/.. >>>>> exists with all boards. There's nothing specific to qemu here except >>>>> that running U-Boot on qemu on the host rather than on separate HW might >>>>> more easily trigger the "high load on the host" condition; I see the >>>>> issue now and then and manually retry that test, although that is a bit >>>>> annoying. >>>>> >>>>> The original test was mostly intended to make sure that e U-Boot clock >>>>> didn't run at a significantly different rate to the host, since I had >>>>> seen that issue during development of some board support or as a >>>>> regression sometime. Perhaps the definition of "significantly different" >>>>> should be more like "1/2 rate or twice rate or more" rather than "off by >>>>> a small fraction of a second". That might avoid so many false positives. >>>> >>>> We had this issue with silicon v1 and having accurate sleep measuring is >>>> definitely good thing to have (Probably make sense to enable margin >>>> setup via variable anyway). >>>> >>>> But still I would extend this to more wider discussion how to disable >>>> just one particular test case which is verified that it is broken on >>>> certain target/target configuration. >>>> Using -k not XXX option is possible but as I said before it is not ideal >>>> to keep track of these problematic tests in two locations and share this >>>> between two teams. >>>> >>>> Better would be to add to u_boot_boardenv...py file line like this >>>> skip_test_sleep = True >>>> >>>> Which would be parsed and test won't run for specific board/configuration. >>>> The same logic can be generic that user can add for example >>>> skip_test_net_dhcp = True >>>> to skip dhcp test for whatever reason. >>>> >>>> Then for travis-ci we can just put these lines to py/travis-ci/. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> Ah, good idea! We have a few cases like this already, so how about >>> env__sleep_accurate, default it to True and let the board files set it >>> to false, and have test_sleep check for and use that? >> >> ok. this is about that variable for sleep not about generic skipping >> testcases which are failing. > > Right. I'm not sure we need to get too complicated on "skip these > tests" logic. But I think we have enough technical information now to > say it's reasonable to skip sleep in some cases. >
Ok. Patch send please review. Thanks, Michal _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot