On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:05:27 -0600 Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:45PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:37:29 -0600 > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 08:15:48AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:50:09AM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 10:48:37 -0600 > > > > > Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:05:51PM +0100, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Kory, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 14:32, Kory Maincent (TI.com) > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This series converts the extension board framework to use > > > > > > > > UCLASS as requested by Simon Glass, then adds extension support > > > > > > > > to pxe_utils and bootmeth_efi (not tested) to enable extension > > > > > > > > boards devicetree load in the standard boot process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't test the imx8 extension scan enabled by the > > > > > > > > imx8mm-cl-iot-gate_defconfig as I don't have this board. > > > > > > > > I also can't test the efi bootmeth change as I don't have such > > > > > > > > board. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can test this with sandbox, using one of the bootmeth tests, > > > > > > > perhaps. Let me know if you need help with this. > > > > > > > > > > > > But the question is, does the real hardware platform work > > > > > > before/after this, not does the sandbox test still work > > > > > > before/after this. > > > > > > > > > > It seems the bootlflow scan is not working on the sandbox on next > > > > > branch. Is this issue known? > > > > > > > > Is it fine on master? The next branch will be out of date until it > > > > re-opens with -rc2 being released (2 weeks from today). > > > > > > ... out of sync local calendar, 3 weeks from today, not 2. > > > > bootstd test suit is not working on master with the sandbox_defconfig: > > https://termbin.com/un0p > > > > Noticeable things are; > > test/boot/bootdev.c:160, bootdev_test_any(): 0 == bootdev_find_by_any(seq, > > &dev, &mflags): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0xffffffed (-19) Test: > > bootdev_test_any: bootdev.c (flat tree) test/boot/bootdev.c:160, > > bootdev_test_any(): 0 == bootdev_find_by_any(seq, &dev, &mflags): Expected > > 0x0 (0), got 0xffffffed (-19) Test 'bootdev_test_any' failed 2 times > > > > And a nice segfault: > > Test: bootflow_set_arg: bootflow.c > > Test: bootflow_system: bootflow.c > > [3] 569337 segmentation fault (core dumped) ./u-boot > > > > Maybe things are missing to run sandbox_defconfig on my computer? > > With the sandbox64_defconfig there is not core dump anymore but there is > > still the failed line: > > Test 'bootdev_test_bootable' failed 2 times > > > > And the uboot is reboot infinitely during the bootflow test: > > ./u-boot -T -c "ut bootstd" > > https://termbin.com/alu5 > > I see the same thing you do when running them outside of pytest, but > they're also fine within pytest. > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/pytest/usage.html should help > get you started, and you can just run all of the ut tests under that. Weird I got errors also within pytest. See the html test log attached generated by the following command: ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox -k bootstd Regards, -- Köry Maincent, Bootlin Embedded Linux and kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
