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

Tue Jun 13 14:56:21 UTC 2023

On 12.06.23 17:58, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> 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

This is a nicely balanced and easy approach. Place BSP-specific tests in 
a "bsps" directory. Place architecture-specific tests in a "cpu" directory.

> 
>>>
>>> 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.

Ok, I will add something to this section.

> 
> 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.

For the unit tests I would use testsuites/unit/bsps and testsuites/unit/cpu.

> 
> I'm not entirely clear about the difference between 'validation' and
> any other kind of tests, such as where specific tests should be
> located.

The validation tests are linked to a specification item.

> 
>> 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.)

tc - Test case

ts - Test suite

tr - Test runner

tx - Test extensions (support code)

> 
> 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/

-- 
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/