On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:12:41 Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 22:59 +0000, Sipke Vriend wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:00 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > > >On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 03:09 +0000, Sipke Vriend wrote: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> This RFC is a proposal to allow BSP layers to setup qemu with their > > >> specific requirements for the testimage oe-core functionality. > > >> The suggested changes will be exercised by the > > >> bitbake -c testimage <image> > > >> command. > > >> Similarly to the oeqa test cases this proposal extends the > > >> meta/lib/oeqa > > >> python modules to allow inclusion of python utility scripts in the BSP > > >> layers. > > >> Any BSP layer wishing to supply their own qemu setup would need to > > >> create > > >> an appropriate meta-bsplayer/lib/oeqa/utils/<machine>starter.py > > >> The effect is that the lib/oeqa/utils/qemurunner will either allow the > > >> bsp layer provided <machine>starter to spawn qemu or if not provided, > > >> spawn qemu via runqemu as currently. > > >> An example bsp layer is available here: > > >> https://github.com/sipke/meta-xilinx/tree/sipke/qemurunner > > >> with all required additions in the meta-xilinx/lib directory. > > >> > > >> This RFC is triggered by and indirectly related to > > >> Bugzilla report "runqemu shouldn't hard-code machine knowledge" > > >> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4827 > > > > > >Why would we do this rather than improve runqemu to be extendable from > > >BSP layers? > > > > Proposing as an additional way to launch qemu for oeqa testimage > > functionality, Improving runqemu can and probably should still happen. > > > > To consider: > > * it keeps testimage functionality (for bsp layers specific things) in > > the lib directly (similar to test cases) and as python. > > * testing (via testimage) may have a different requirement to that of > > running runqemu on the command line, so an alternate way to launch qemu > > could be useful. > > * should this approach of extending the oeqa testimage functionality > > into bsp layers be accepted, this could allow also for bsp specific > > hardware setup for testimage functionality in bsp layers. > > > > Primary aim is a solution which allows the bsp layer to control the > > setup of qemu (and eventually hardware) for testimage functionality. This > > is a proposal towards that goal. > > I thought Stefan was already also working on something towards this > goal. I'd like to ensure we don't end up with two things doing the same > thing. > > Stefan? > > To be clear, I would like to see runqemu enhanced so BSP layers can > extend it, I think that would be useful for everyone. Once we've done > that, I'd like to revisit the qemu abstraction in testimage and figure > out what changes it needs. Some may be required, some may not if we fix > runqemu first, I'm unclear from these commits what those would be > though.
FWIW I agree, we need to have the BSP-specific functionality in runqemu and then what we do with QemuRunner will follow on from that. I think the other patches in the series to do with setting user/port should be OK to consider independently of this, though. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
