Hi Tom, On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 at 10:03, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:08:32AM +0300, Ilias Apalodimas wrote: > > Hi Simon > > > > On Tue, 11 Jun 2024 at 23:02, Simon Glass <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Labgrid provides access to a hardware lab in an automated way. It is > > > possible to boot U-Boot on boards in the lab without physically touching > > > them. It relies on relays, USB UARTs and SD muxes, among other things. > > > > > > By way of background, about 4 years ago I wrong a thing called Labman[1] > > > which allowed my lab of about 30 devices to be operated remotely, using > > > tbot for the console and build integration. While it worked OK and I > > > used it for many bisects, I didn't take it any further. > > > > > > It turns out that there was already an existing program, called Labgrid, > > > which I did not know about at time (thank you Tom for telling me). It is > > > more rounded than Labman and has a number of advantages: > > > > > > - does not need udev rules, mostly > > > - has several existing users who rely on it > > > - supports multiple machines exporting their devices > > > > > > It lacks a 'lab check' feature and a few other things, but these can be > > > remedied. > > > > > > On and off over the past several weeks I have been experimenting with > > > Labgrid. I have managed to create an initial U-Boot integration (this > > > series) by adding various features to Labgrid[2] and the U-Boot test > > > hooks. > > > > > > I hope that this might inspire others to set up boards and run tests > > > automatically, rather than relying on infrequent, manual test. Perhaps > > > it may even be possible to have a number of labs available. > > > > > > Included in the integration are a number of simple scripts which make it > > > easy to connect to boards and run tests: > > > > > > ub-int <target> > > > Build and boot on a target, starting an interactive session > > > > > > ub-cli <target> > > > Build and boot on a target, ensure U-Boot starts and provide an > > > interactive > > > session from there > > > > > > ub-smoke <target> > > > Smoke test U-Boot to check that it boots to a prompt on a target > > > > > > ub-bisect > > > Bisect a git tree to locate a failure on a particular target > > > > > > ub-pyt <target> <testspec> > > > Run U-Boot pytests on a target > > > > > > Some of these help to provide the same tbot[4] workflow which I have > > > relied on for several years, albeit much simpler versions. > > > > > > The goal here is to create some sort of script which can collect > > > patches from the mailing list, apply them and test them on a selection > > > of boards. I suspect that script already exists, so please let me know > > > what you suggest. > > > > > > I hope you find this interesting and take a look! > > > > Thanks this is interesting! > > I only got cc'ed on the cover letter and I'll slowly have a look on > > the rest. A naive question -- I saw you did integrate this on gitlab > > with your internal lab. How secure is this? Could we schedule weekly > > builds that run on various remote labs and get results on actual > > hardware? Or do we have to rely on users for that ? > > That's where this certainly gets a little tricky. Ideally, and part of > why I've been hoping to get Labgrid going with our pytest suite, since > it's good enough for kernelci (and people to be reasonably confident > about allowing not-exactly-random-user-access), it should be good enough > for us too. So my long term hope is that we can: > - Have Labgrid based labs + something know to monitor trees+branches at > X location (like I know today some people poll and test my WIP > branches). > - Have it be reasonably clear that if you maintain a lab for kernelci, > you can add testing U-Boot in too. > > In the medium term, I am hopeful we can at least expose this to all > custodian trees on source.denx.de. And I'm saying "we" here as I have > two much smaller labs also going, one with Labgrid, and both a much > smaller set of targets currently.
That sounds good to me. Regards, Simon
