Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Deprecate the "collie" machine and Strongarm devices

[Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>]

Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> writes:

> On 10/29/18 6:24 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 27 October 2018 at 12:04, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/26/18 3:12 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> Hi Guenter; there's a proposal here to deprecate (and eventually
>>>> remove) the 'collie' board (strongarm) from QEMU. Is that one of
>>>> the ones you're currently using in your automated testing of Linux
>>>> kernels on QEMU?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. I can run the test with older versions of qemu, so it is ok for me
>>> if it is removed (as long as that removal is not backported).
>>
>> Mmm, but if we have an active user who's testing them then they
>> probably shouldn't be in the frontline of boards to remove.
>> Which other boards do you test with mainline QEMU?
>>
>
> For arm:
>
> akita
> ast2500-evb
> beagle
> beaglexm
> borzoi
> collie
> cubieboard
> imx25-pdk
> integratorcp
> kzm
> mainstone
> midway
> mps2-an385
> overo
> palmetto-bmc
> raspi2
> realview-eb
> realview-eb-mpcore
> realview-pb-a8
> realview-pbx-a9
> romulus-bmc
> sabrelite
> smdkc210
> spitz
> terrier
> tosa
> versatileab
> versatilepb
> vexpress-a15
> vexpress-a15-a7
> vexpress-a9
> witherspoon-bmc
> xilinx-zynq-a9
> z2
>
> Though not all of them are supported by upstream qemu. For some of them I carry local patches,
> for others I use out-of-tree versions of qemu (beagle/beaglexm).

Would it be possible to get useful parts of your automated testing into
upstream QEMU's CI?

I'm asking because I think we should require at least a smoke test in CI
for all machine types, and drop the ones that lack it.  Not today, but
in the not-too-distant future.