From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 00:21:43 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] RFC: Testing U-Boot Part 1 In-Reply-To: <201108251056.41026.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <4E565472.40508@gmail.com> <201108251056.41026.vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: <201108260021.43506.marek.vasut@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Thursday, August 25, 2011 04:56:39 PM Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2011 09:56:02 Andreas Bie?mann wrote: > > Am 25.08.2011 14:58, schrieb Simon Glass: > > > Summary: I am quite keen on improving the test infrastructure in > > > U-Boot. I would like to have a test suite that can run in a minute or > > > two on a Linux PC and test all non-platform code. > > > > > > > > > To get around this I propose that we create a new ?native? > > > architecture. We write code in ?arch/native? which can run under > > > Linux. Since all the non-platform code will happily run under this new > > > ?architecture?, we can then write tests which run quickly under x86 > > > Linux (or another Linux for that matter). This U-Boot 'architecture' > > > should build natively on any 32/64-bit Linux machine since it just > > > uses standard Linux system calls. Calls to Linux would be entirely > > > within this arch/native subdirectory. > > > > why don't use some unit testing framework like cunit, or ceedling (which > > can do HW mocks easily)? > > these testing frameworks wont make any difference to what Simon is > proposing. he is focusing on getting u-boot to build & run on your desktop > machine. after that is done, we can talk about the actual tests and > harnesses (although anything that requires ruby should immediately be > disqualified imo :P). -mike Definitelly agree with the RUBY part.