Hi Heinrich, Tom, On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 08:47, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 07.01.25 16:11, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2025 at 06:57:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Heinrich, > >> > >> On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 at 06:11, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 07.01.25 13:15, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>> Hi Heinrich, > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 at 10:00, Heinrich Schuchardt <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> On 06.01.25 15:47, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>>>> This test was hamstrung in code review so this series is an attempt to > >>>>>> complete the intended functionality: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Check memory allocations look correct > >>>>>> - Check that exit-boot-services removes active-DMA devices > >>>>>> - Check that the bootflow is still present after testapp finishes > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The EFI functionality duplicates bootm_announce_and_cleanup() and still > >>>>>> uses the defunct board_quiesce_devices() so a nice cleanup would be to > >>>>>> call the bootm function instead, with suitable modifications. That > >>>>>> would > >>>>>> allow bootstage to work too. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This series is based on sjg/master since the EFI logging was rejected > >>>>>> so > >>>>>> far. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes, it was rejected because a solution at the lib/log.c level would be > >>>>> more generic. > >>>> > >>>> As I mentioned, that idea isn't suitable for programmatic use. > >>> > >>> What can be done with show_addr("mem", rec->memory); that log_debug() > >>> does not offer or which you could not do with a new log function in > >>> lib/log.c that takes variadic arguments? > >> > >> There are asserts in [1], for example. How do you propose to handle > >> that? See [2] for my previous explanation, quoted here: > >> > >>> CONFIG_LOG with a bloblist option would be a great idea, but it's hard > >>> to programmatically scan text...plus only the external call sites are > >>> actually logged. > >> > >> Also see the discussion on the original patch [3]. There was also your > >> reply at [4], but I think you missed that this is intended for use in > >> unit tests (i.e. with ut_assert()). > >> > >> You also requested that this be generalised, rather than being > >> EFI-loader-specific. I have no objection to that, but don't have a use > >> case for it yet, so have deferred that to later. It's a fairly simple > >> change, if/when needed. If the series was not NAKed, I'd be happy to > >> do it now. > >> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Tom suggested not to send patches that are for private enjoyment to the > >>>>> mailing list. > >>>> > >>>> My contributions to U-Boot are only ever about private enjoyment :-) > >>>> > >>>> Do you have any comments on the patches? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Simon > >> > >> [1] > >> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/ > >> [2] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAFLszTjxOE_037+kR0jgdax80sBombYo_k0YgiuVnP=kzco...@mail.gmail.com/ > >> [3] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/CAC_iWjKtaN54B98OKbkoXkC_GmKJ=x+M4=uy_o6rosopzad...@mail.gmail.com/ > >> [4] > >> https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/[email protected]/ > > > > Looking at the logging portions of the original series again, especially > > if this was made generic, we probably don't want to print to actual > > console every time we're making a note of some memory allocation for > > example, that would be unreadable outside of a debug context. The point > > of this really seems to be "log things for verifying in tests later". > > Does that end up being useful? I don't know. Heinrich or Ilias, do the > > tests in [1] look generally useful? > > > > The tests in [1] are not documented, not even in the commit message. So > the reasoning behind the tests remains Simon's secret.
Are you asking for code comments in the test? If so, I can add some. > > At first sight the tests in [1] don't make much sense. E.g. that only a > subset of memory types have been used does not tell that the right > memory type has been used for the right object. It is a pretty good start, though. It makes sure that the memory types are sane, checks addresses are within DRAM, etc. With [5] it makes sure that devices are removed. > > Implementing a specific tracing functionality for EFI is definitively > the wrong way forward as it will lead to code duplication. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. > > We already have function _log() which is variadic. > > Simon could write a new log driver that parses the `format` parameter > and saves the binary data in an appropriate format for analysis by the > unit tests: > > * For %s the driver should save the string and not the address of the > string. > * For %pD the driver should save the device path instead of the pointer. > * ... > > Some changes to the log driver interface will be needed to pass the > variadic arguments instead of the formatted message. Perhaps the word 'log' is confusing people. But the above suggestion is quite a complicated way of handling things. We have no way to decode printf() strings in this way. See log_dispatch() for how this is handled today. It uses sprintf(). Trying to test based on text output would be very clumsy (lots of regexes and sscan() calls?) and result in a huge amount of parsing code, highly dependent on the printf() format, etc. I very-much doubt that would produce a useful implementation, but if you would like to try it out then I would be happy to look at it. I mentioned this several times, but even if we did go that way, we only have logging on the external calls, so much of the EFI-memory allocation in U-Boot would not be logged. Regards, Simon [5] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/[email protected]/
