BSP-Specific Testing was: [PATCH 00/34] Integrate pre-qualified LEON3 BSP

Mon Jun 12 15:58:12 UTC 2023

On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 12:56 AM Sebastian Huber
<sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 01.06.23 22:06, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 2:00 PM Gedare Bloom<gedare at rtems.org>  wrote:
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> >> From: Sebastian Huber<sebastian.huber at 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.huber at 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/