Hi Guillaume, Thank you for the patch.
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 12:17, "Guillaume La Roque (TI.com)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Add test to verify that androidboot.* parameters are correctly extracted > from bootargs and appended to the bootconfig section when using > 'abootimg get ramdisk' with boot image v4 and vendor_boot image. > > The test verifies: > - androidboot.* parameters are removed from bootargs > - They are appended to the bootconfig section in the ramdisk > - Non-androidboot parameters remain in bootargs > - The bootconfig trailer is properly updated > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Guillaume La Roque (TI.com) <[email protected]> I've tested this on top of master commit c05dba22f1f2 ("Merge branch 'master' of git://source.denx.de/u-boot-usb") with: $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k ut $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k android And I see: FAILED test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py::test_abootimg - ValueError: U-Boot exited with signal 6 (SIGABRT) FAILED test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py::test_abootimgv4 - ValueError: U-Boot exited with signal 6 (SIGABRT) Also, see below for some review comments > --- > test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py | 108 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 99 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py > b/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py > index 2aadb692b30..bd5fb992a7d 100644 > --- a/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py > +++ b/test/py/tests/test_android/test_abootimg.py > @@ -69,15 +69,33 @@ > e5bddc8a7b792d8e8788c896ce9b88d32ebe6c971e7ddd3543cae734cd01 > c0ffc84c0000b0766d1a87d4e5afeadd3dab7a6f10000000f84163d5d7cd > d43a000000000000000060c53e7544995700400000""" > > -# vendor boot image v4 hex dump > -vboot_img_hex = > """1f8b0808baaecd63020376626f6f742e696d6700edd8310b824018c6f1b3 > -222a08f41b3436b4280dcdd19c11d16ee9109d18d59042d047ec8b04cd0d > -d19d5a4345534bf6ffc173ef29272f38e93b1d0ec67dd79d548462aa1cd2 > -d5d20b0000f8438678f90c18d584b8a4bbb3a557991ecb2a0000f80d6b2f > -f4179b656be5c532f2fc066f040000000080e23936af2755f62a3d918df1 > -db2a7ab67f9ffdeb7df7cda3465ecb79c4ce7e5c577562bb9364b74449a5 > -1e467e20c53c0a57de763193c1779b3b4fcd9d4ee27c6a0e00000000c0ff > -309ffea7010000000040f1dc004129855400400000""" > +# vendor boot image v4 hex dump (contains initial bootconfig: > androidboot.hardware=test) > +vboot_img_hex = > """1f8b08000000000002ffeddb316a02411806d009a49040606d3d84374823a9a348b095 > +915951b2c9caee8690ce237a91406a0b497603e215dcbc577cf3334cf5350303b3787a > +9c4fa6d3e7dbf02b6b63dfc6b01b0180ffe726644d5e37975bb34108c76efa1eb65974 > +c7fed691c600e02a64e7ab3e8494afe37bd128050000007ae6707ffad202000000f45b > +155fd3b67e59eee26751c674a711000000e89ff896aa729b5665d98c37b14a1fb1ca1f > +da4f7f5e02000000a0377e0040ab5ba000500000""" > + > +# bootable boot image v4 hex dump (contains actual bootable kernel) > +boot_bootable_img_hex = > """1f8b08081663ee6802ff626f6f745f626f6f7461626c655f76342e696d67 > +00edd1c14ac3401485e159b80a083ec24dba4f117c81d8140c6dad24ee25 > +4da6e9d07452321305dfca37d4d4ec5cb954fe6f37ccb967606ef298e6db > +2c0d3f94526feae25adda81fae140000000000f8ab66e17c67ecdc1d025d > +1d3a89125bf79da9e5beebbc64a7b2d1f27a27cfda7959e9deea369a8263 > +a0eaecde34e2c75b375495766e3fb46114cca430a7a12dbd96e3654a7663 > +dfb9f4feeb383514beecbdb1cd1489e3380a5cabf5596ea7c4f78b62acf1 > +a66ccdbbaea380950100000000f06b79b249b362f5f2b44e16cb87ed3a5d > +e67c0a0000000000ffcc27ba944c7e00300000""" > + > +# bootable vendor boot image v4 hex dump (contains actual bootable ramdisk) > +vendor_boot_bootable_img_hex = > """1f8b08081663ee6802ff76656e646f725f626f6f745f626f6f7461626c65 > +5f76342e696d6700edd8b10a02310cc6f10c0e7220f8080737b8b93ab9a8 > +282e571171959e0d787058a84557f5c96ddd7d80c3ff0f92217c5396408e > +f56abf30e63090649c9b3c53bd050000fcab57d45b3c35de47db749a06bb > +e1eff08c7d0100d00bf6ea826f5dbef0d38b0dee618396f3f27bf69ddedb > +b316558a4d462255fe132c4dbdde6e0a160700000000408f7c0027597569 > +00200000""" Can we use boot_bootable and vendor_boot_bootable images for the other tests as well? (for example for testing bootmeth_android) This would reduce the amount of images we need. > > # Expected response for "abootimg dtb_dump" command > dtb_dump_resp="""## DTB area contents (concat format): > @@ -179,6 +197,24 @@ def abootimgv4_disk_image_boot(ubman): > gtdi3 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'bootv4.img', boot_img_hex) > return gtdi3 > > +gtdi4 = None > [email protected](scope='function') > +def abootimgv4_bootable_disk_image_boot(ubman): > + """pytest fixture to provide bootable boot image v4.""" > + global gtdi4 > + if not gtdi4: > + gtdi4 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'boot_bootable_v4.img', > boot_bootable_img_hex) > + return gtdi4 > + > +gtdi5 = None > [email protected](scope='function') > +def abootimgv4_bootable_disk_image_vboot(ubman): > + """pytest fixture to provide bootable vendor boot image v4.""" > + global gtdi5 > + if not gtdi5: > + gtdi5 = AbootimgTestDiskImage(ubman, 'vendor_boot_bootable_v4.img', > vendor_boot_bootable_img_hex) > + return gtdi5 > + > @pytest.mark.boardspec('sandbox') > @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('android_boot_image') > @pytest.mark.buildconfigspec('cmd_abootimg') > @@ -266,3 +302,57 @@ def test_abootimgv4(abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot, > abootimgv4_disk_image_boot, ubm > ubman.run_command('fdt get value v / model') > response = ubman.run_command('env print v') > assert response == 'v=x2' > + > [email protected]('sandbox') > [email protected]('android_boot_image') > [email protected]('cmd_abootimg') > [email protected]('xxd') > [email protected]('gunzip') > +def test_abootimg_bootconfig(abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot, > + abootimgv4_disk_image_boot, > + ubman): > + """Test bootconfig handling with boot image v4. > + > + Verifies that androidboot.* parameters from bootargs are appended to the > + bootconfig section in vendor_boot image in memory, and that > non-androidboot > + parameters remain in bootargs. > + """ > + > + # Setup addresses > + ram_base = utils.find_ram_base(ubman) > + ramdisk_addr_r = ram_base + 0x4000000 > + ubman.run_command('setenv ramdisk_addr_r 0x%x' % ramdisk_addr_r) > + ubman.run_command('setenv loadaddr 0x%x' % loadaddr) > + ubman.run_command('setenv vloadaddr 0x%x' % vloadaddr) > + > + # Set bootargs with androidboot.* parameters > + ubman.run_command('setenv bootargs "androidboot.serialno=ABC123 > androidboot.mode=recovery console=ttyS0"') > + > + # Load images > + ubman.run_command('host load hostfs - 0x%x %s' % (vloadaddr, > + abootimgv4_disk_image_vboot.path)) > + ubman.run_command('host load hostfs - 0x%x %s' % (loadaddr, > + abootimgv4_disk_image_boot.path)) > + ubman.run_command('abootimg addr 0x%x 0x%x' % (loadaddr, vloadaddr)) > + > + # Extract ramdisk (triggers bootconfig append) > + ubman.run_command('abootimg get ramdisk ramdisk_addr ramdisk_size') > + > + # Get ramdisk address > + response = ubman.run_command('env print ramdisk_addr') > + ramdisk_start = int(response.split('=')[1], 16) > + > + # Verify androidboot.* parameters were removed from bootargs > + response = ubman.run_command('env print bootargs') > + assert 'androidboot.' not in response > + assert 'console=ttyS0' in response > + > + # Get ramdisk size and verify BOOTCONFIG magic at the end > + response = ubman.run_command('env print ramdisk_size') > + ramdisk_size = int(response.split('=')[1], 16) > + > + # Dump the end of the ramdisk where BOOTCONFIG trailer should be > + response = ubman.run_command('md.b 0x%x 96' % (ramdisk_start)) > + > + # Verify BOOTCONFIG magic is present > + assert 'BOOTCONFIG' in response or 'BOOTCON' in response Why verifying both BOOTCONFIG and BOOTCON ? According to [1], the magic is BOOTCONFIG. So this makes checking for BOOTCON irrelevant. [1] https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/bootloader/implementing-bootconfig#bootloader-changes > > -- > 2.34.1
