Re: [PATCH 3/6] tests/qtest/bios-tables-test: Add basic testing for LoongArch64

[Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 17:27:26 +0800
Bibo Mao <maobibo@loongson.cn> wrote:

> Add basic ACPI table test case for LoongArch64.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bibo Mao <maobibo@loongson.cn>
> ---
>  tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 62 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> index 0a333ec435..008d7a0497 100644
> --- a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> +++ b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
> @@ -2420,6 +2420,59 @@ static void test_acpi_aarch64_virt_oem_fields(void)
>      g_free(args);
>  }
>  
> +#define LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data)                          \
> +    test_data data = {                                            \
> +        .machine = "virt",                                        \
> +        .arch    = "loongarch64",                                 \
> +        .tcg_only = true,                                         \
> +        .uefi_fl1 = "pc-bios/edk2-loongarch64-code.fd",           \
> +        .uefi_fl2 = "pc-bios/edk2-loongarch64-vars.fd",           \
> +        .cd = "tests/data/uefi-boot-images/"                      \
> +              "bios-tables-test.loongarch64.iso.qcow2",           \
> +        .ram_start = 0,                                           \
> +        .scan_len = 128ULL * 1024 * 1024,                         \

while it consistent with other test, we should switch to using MiB macro
so I'd like to ask
 * 1st convert all similar places in bios-tables-test.c 'x * MiB' style
 * fix up this patch to use that as well

> +    }
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt(void)
> +{
> +    LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> +    test_acpi_one("-cpu la464 ", &data);
> +    free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_topology(void)
> +{
> +    LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> +    data.variant = ".topology";
> +    test_acpi_one("-cpu la464 -smp sockets=1,cores=4,threads=2", &data);
> +    free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +
> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem(void)
> +{
> +    LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> +    data.variant = ".numamem";
> +    test_acpi_one(" -cpu la464 -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram0,size=128M"
> +                  " -numa node,memdev=ram0", &data);
> +    free_test_data(&data);
> +}
> +

> +static void test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_memhp(void)
> +{
> +    LOONGARCH64_INIT_TEST_DATA(data);
> +
> +    data.variant = ".memhp";
> +    test_acpi_one(" -cpu la464 -m 128,slots=3,maxmem=1G"

> +                  " -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram0,size=64M"
> +                  " -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram1,size=64M"
> +                  " -numa node,memdev=ram0 -numa node,memdev=ram1"
> +                  " -numa dist,src=0,dst=1,val=21",
I'd test numa specific stuff in test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem()
and simplify this test case.

> +                  &data);
> +    free_test_data(&data);
> +}
>  
>  int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>  {
> @@ -2593,6 +2646,15 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>              qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/numamem",
>                             test_acpi_riscv64_virt_tcg_numamem);
>          }
> +    } else if (strcmp(arch, "loongarch64") == 0) {
> +        if (has_tcg && qtest_has_device("virtio-blk-pci")) {
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is it necessary?
if yes, then add explanation to commit message, why it's need.

> +            qtest_add_func("acpi/virt", test_acpi_loongarch64_virt);
> +            qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/topology",
> +                           test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_topology);
> +            qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/numamem",
> +                           test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_numamem);
> +            qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/memhp", test_acpi_loongarch64_virt_memhp);
> +        }
>      }
>      ret = g_test_run();
>      boot_sector_cleanup(disk);