On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:13:15PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Masami, > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 at 02:36, Masami Hiramatsu > <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > 2022年3月15日(火) 14:04 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > Hi Masami, > > > > > > On Mon, 14 Mar 2022 at 18:40, Masami Hiramatsu > > > <masami.hirama...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > 2022年3月15日(火) 3:24 Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>: > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, well 'reset by a user' presumably starts the board up and then > > > > > > > runs some code to do the update in U-Boot? Is that right? If so, > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > just need to trigger that update from the test. We don't need to > > > > > > > test > > > > > > > the actual reset, at least not with sandbox. As I said, we need to > > > > > > > write the code so that it is easy to test. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, we already have that command, "efidebug capsule > > > > > > disk-update" > > > > > > which kicks the capsule update code even without the 'reset by a > > > > > > user'. So we can just kick this command for checking whether the > > > > > > U-Boot UEFI code correctly find the capsule file from ESP which > > > > > > specified by UEFI vars. > > > > > > > > > > > > However, the 'capsule update on-disk' feature is also expected (and > > > > > > defined in the spec?) to run when the UEFI subsystem is initialized. > > > > > > This behavior will not be tested if we skip the 'reset by a user'. I > > > > > > guess Takahiro's current test case tries to check it. > > > > > > > > > > The 'UEFI subsystem is intialised' is a problem, actually, since if it > > > > > were better integrated into driver model, it would not have separate > > > > > structures or they would be present and enabled when driver model is. > > > > > I hope that it can be fixed and Takahiro's series is a start in that > > > > > direction. > > > > > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > But as to a test that an update is called when UEFI starts, that seems > > > > > like a single line of code. Sure it is nice to test it, but it is much > > > > > more important to test the installation of the update and the > > > > > execution of the update. I suppose another way to test that is to > > > > > shut down the UEFI subsystem and start it up? > > > > > > > > Yes, currently we call do_reset() after install the capsule file. > > > > (This reset can be avoided if we replace it with > > > > sysreset_walk_halt(SYSRESET_COLD) as you said, right?) > > > > > > > > Here is how I tested it on my machine; > > > > > > > > > usb start > > > > > fatload usb 0 $kernel_addr_r test.cap > > > > > fatwrite mmc 0 $fileaddr EFI/UpdateCapsule/test.cap $filesize > > > > > efidebug capsule disk-update > > > > (run install process and reboot the machine) > > > > > > > > So, if we can avoid the last reset, we can test the below without > > > > reset on sandbox (depends on scenarios). > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk can find the capsule file > > > > from ESP specified by the BOOTXXXX EFI variable. > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk writes the firmware > > > > correctly to the storage which specified by DFU. > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk success if the capsule image > > > > type is supported. > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk fails if the capsule image > > > > type is not supported. > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk will reboot after update > > > > even if the update is failed. > > > > > > > > The only spec we can not test is > > > > - confirm that the capsule update on disk is kicked when the UEFI is > > > > initialized. > > > > > > Even that could be tested, by installing an update and then initing UEFI? > > > > yeah, if the UEFI is not initialized yet, we can run some UEFI related > > command (e.g. printenv -e) instead of efidebug capsule... to execute > > the capsule update on disk. > > But anyway, this is only available at the first time. We need a way to > > reset UEFI subsystem without system reset. > > Yes. It is certainly possible, but I'm not sure how easy it is. > Perhaps just drop all the EFI data structures and run the EFI init > again? We have something similar with driver model. See > dm_test_pre_run() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway we should design subsystems so they are easy to test. > > > > > > > > Here I guess you mean the unit test, not system test, am I correct? > > > > > > Yes. Easy testing is so important for developer productivity and > > > happiness. It is fine to have large system/functional tests as a fall > > > back or catch-all, but they tend to test the happy path only. When > > > they fail, they are hard to debug because they cover such as large > > > area of the code and they often have complex setup requirements so are > > > hard to run manually. > > > > > > My hope is that all the functionality should be covered by unit tests > > > or integration tests, so that system/functional almost never fail. > > > > My another question is how small is the granularity of the unit test. > > As I showed, the UEFI capsule update needs to prepare a capsule file > > installed in the storage. > > That seems to be very system-level. But you think that is still be a unit > > test? > > (I expected that the 'Unit test' is something like KUnit in Linux) > > Well I am using your terminology here. Technically many of the U-Boot > tests (executed by 'ut' command) are not really unit tests. They bring > in a lot of code and run one test case using it. > > For example, one of the tests brings up the USB subsystem, including a > fake USB stick, then checks it can read data from the stick, using the > USB stack. > > Another one writes some things to the emulated display and then checks > that the correct pixels are there. > > Perhaps a better name would be integration test. But the point is that > we can run these tests very, very quickly and (setup aside) without > outside influence, or without restarting the executable, etc.
I don't really understand why you want and need to avoid a real reset in, what you call, integration test. -Takahiro Akashi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Masami's patch (this series) fixes issues around those two > > > > > > > > resets > > > > > > > > in pytest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes and that is the problem I have, at least on sandbox. > > > > > > > > > > > > So If I I call sysreset_walk_halt(SYSRESET_COLD) after capsule > > > > > > update, > > > > > > it could help? > > > > > > > > > > Yes that can help, because sandbox can detect that and turn it into a > > > > > nop. > > > > > > > > OK, let me submit a patch to update it. > > > > > > OK thank you. > > Regards, > SImon