On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:56 AM Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > > > On 01.06.23 22:06, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:00 PM Gedare Bloom<ged...@rtems.org> wrote: > >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >> From: Sebastian Huber<sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> > >> Date: Wed, May 31, 2023 at 10:31 AM > >> > >> The existing tests in the RTEMS test suite are basically BSP > >> independent. This patch set introduces BSP-specific validation tests. > >> These tests are disabled for other BSPs through the build system, for > >> example: > >> > >> spec/build/testsuites/validation/bsp-sparc-leon3-gr712rc.yml > >> [...] > >> cxxflags: [] > >> enabled-by: sparc/gr712rc > >> features: c cprogram > >> [...] > > The use of the enabled-by: field to control the BSP-specific tests > > looks reasonable. However, we should decide where/how any BSP-specific > > tests should reside. It looks to me like the current approach is to > > dump all test files in a single monolithic 'validation' directory, and > > let the user/script sort it out. This results in a mix of tests > > intended for all targets, and some for specific targets. This is > > pretty much non-maintainable from my point-of-view without some > > additional tool support. Correct me if I'm wrong. > > Yes, this is the current approach. There is no strict one-to-one > relationship of test cases and test suites. The file names are somewhat > descriptive, for example: > > ls -l *leon3* > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 3739 31. Mai 10:44 > tc-bsp-sparc-leon3-gr712rc.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 6138 31. Mai 10:44 > tc-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-shutdown.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 5135 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-boot.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2723 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-boot.h > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 5406 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-secondary.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2753 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-secondary.h > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 5270 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-clock-initialization.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2681 31. Mai 10:44 > tr-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-clock-initialization.h > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2488 31. Mai 10:44 > ts-bsp-sparc-leon3-gr712rc.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2845 31. Mai 10:44 > ts-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-boot.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2919 31. Mai 10:44 > ts-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-cache-snooping-disabled-secondary.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 2797 31. Mai 10:44 > ts-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-clock-initialization.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 3148 31. Mai 10:45 > ts-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-shutdown-response.c > -rw-r--r-- 1 sebastian_h domain users 4909 31. Mai 10:44 > ts-fatal-bsp-sparc-leon3-shutdown.c > > We could also introduce subdirectories to organize things. The test > framework prints out the file name in messages, so it would be nice if > they remain unique. With subdirectories this would lead to longer path > names, for example > > testsuites/validation/sparc/leon3/tc-bsp-sparc-leon3-gr712rc.c > I see. Maybe it makes sense to have all BSP-specific tests in a bsps subdirectory, with the unique names encoded to ensure the arch/bsp combination appears in the filename, such as: testsuites/validation/bsps/tc-bsp-sparc-leon3-gr712rc.c If so, 'bsp-' can probably be omitted from the filename. This way, architecture-specific testing may also be easily possible, like tc-sparc-something.c
> > > > I would like to discuss possible ways to manage the integration of > > tests that are conditionally-built based on the arch/bsp tuple. We > > should have clear guidance for others who want to add such tests in > > the future, or who would modify existing tests. > > Yes, this makes sense. We could add a new section for BSP-specific tests to: > > https://docs.rtems.org/branches/master/eng/req/howto.html > > For a pre-qualified BSP you have to specify the fatal errors and write > validation tests for it. Other BSP-specific specification and validation > may be necessary for the kernel IO device driver, cache controller > support, memory management unit initialization, memory protection unit > initialization, etc. > Good, that would definitely be important to document. I think we should have some of the BSP-specific tests under some other location in testsuites, while others would be under validation where they are used for pre-qualification? Maybe it is sensible to introduce testsuites/bsps/ also. I'm not entirely clear about the difference between 'validation' and any other kind of tests, such as where specific tests should be located. > Even for normal BSPs, some unit tests would be helpful. For example, I > had to fix _AArch32_PMSA_Initialize() twice: > > https://github.com/RTEMS/rtems/commits/master/cpukit/score/cpu/arm/aarch32-psma-init.c > > Unit tests would have probably found the errors before applications hit > the special cases. > Something like testsuites/bsps/arm-aarch32-psma-init.c (or whatever file naming convention we like to decide on. I forget the meaning of tc/tr/ts/tx but recall they are about specific kinds of testing for validation.) Gedare > -- > embedded brains GmbH > Herr Sebastian HUBER > Dornierstr. 4 > 82178 Puchheim > Germany > email: sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de > phone: +49-89-18 94 741 - 16 > fax: +49-89-18 94 741 - 08 > > Registergericht: Amtsgericht München > Registernummer: HRB 157899 > Vertretungsberechtigte Geschäftsführer: Peter Rasmussen, Thomas Dörfler > Unsere Datenschutzerklärung finden Sie hier: > https://embedded-brains.de/datenschutzerklaerung/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
