Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 4/4] uboot-sign: support to load optee-os and TFA images

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2024-01-31 at 08:54 +0000, Jamin Lin wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your review and sorry reply you late.
> 
> Did you mean I should create a new patch to add test case for fitimage of oe-selftest in this series patch?

Ideally, yes please, we should really have test coverage for new things
we're adding.

> After I read this document https://docs.yoctoproject.org/test-manual/index.html, it seems 
> oe-selftest support to test the generated u-boot FIT image and the generated u-boot.its here,
> meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py
> 
> Do I need to add more test case to test u-boot.its and u-boot FIT image for my modifications such as optee-os and trusted-firmware-a supported FIT image?
> According to the design of optee-os and trusted-firmware-a, both recipes were placed in meta-arm meta layer, https://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-arm/tree
> Can I add dependencies in both meta/classes-recipe/uboot-sign.bbclass and meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/fitimage.py.

For this I'm wondering if meta-arm would accept the test case and be
able to run it there? I've copied Ross/Jon who might be able to help
with ideas on that.

> 
> One more question, " There are also no documentation patches?", Did you mean to update Yocto document?
> If yes, could you please tell me which document I need to update?
> 

Where you add new variables we need to define them in the manual:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-docs/tree/documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst

Also, the classes are documented:

https://git.yoctoproject.org/yocto-docs/tree/documentation/ref-manual/classes.rst

so if the variables are class specific, they should probably be
referenced from the class documentation itself.

Cheers,

Richard