Re: [PATCH v3 00/20] Convert extension support to UCLASS and adds its support to boot flows

[Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 11462 bytes --]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 06:54:27PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 08:36:26 -0600
> Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 04:29:19PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 07:49:07 -0600
> > > Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > >   
> > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 02:44:30PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:  
> > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 10:52:05 +0100
> > > > > Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > >     
> > > > > > Hi Kory,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025, 10:02 Kory Maincent <kory.maincent@bootlin.com>
> > > > > > wrote:   
> > > > > > > On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 09:40:58 +0200
> > > > > > > Mattijs Korpershoek <mkorpershoek@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:17, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>
> > > > > > > > wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 07:08:54PM +0200, Kory Maincent wrote:
> > > > > > > > >     
> > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 10:05:27 -0600
> > > > > > > > >> Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>      
> > > > > > > > >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 05:23:45PM +0200, Kory Maincent
> > > > > > > > >> > wrote: 
> > > > > > > > >> > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2025 08:37:29 -0600
> > > > > > > > >> > > Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > >      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 08:15:48AM -0600, Tom Rini
> > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote:      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 11:50:09AM +0200, Kory Maincent
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > wrote:   
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, 19 Oct 2025 10:48:37 -0600
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Oct 19, 2025 at 02:05:51PM +0100, Simon
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Glass 
> > > > > > > wrote:      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Kory,
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On Mon, 13 Oct 2025 at 14:32, Kory Maincent
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > (TI.com) <kory.maincent@bootlin.com> wrote:      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This series converts the extension board
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > framework to      
> > > > > > > use      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > UCLASS as requested by Simon Glass, then adds
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >     
> > > > > > > extension      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > support to pxe_utils and bootmeth_efi (not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > tested) to enable extension boards devicetree
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > load in the 
> > > > > > > standard      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > boot process.
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I can't test the imx8 extension scan enabled
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > by the imx8mm-cl-iot-gate_defconfig as I don't
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > have this 
> > > > > > > board.      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I also can't test the efi bootmeth change as I
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > don't      
> > > > > > > have      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > such board.      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > You can test this with sandbox, using one of the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >      
> > > > > > > bootmeth      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > tests, perhaps. Let me know if you need help with
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > this.   
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > But the question is, does the real hardware
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > platform work before/after this, not does the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > sandbox test still work before/after this.      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > It seems the bootlflow scan is not working on the
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > sandbox      
> > > > > > > on next      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > branch. Is this issue known?      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > Is it fine on master? The next branch will be out of
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > date 
> > > > > > > until it      
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > re-opens with -rc2 being released (2 weeks from
> > > > > > > > >> > > > > today).      
> > > > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > > ... out of sync local calendar, 3 weeks from today, not
> > > > > > > > >> > > > 2. 
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > bootstd test suit is not working on master with the      
> > > > > > > sandbox_defconfig:      
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://termbin.com/un0p
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Noticeable things are;
> > > > > > > > >> > > test/boot/bootdev.c:160, bootdev_test_any(): 0 ==
> > > > > > > > >> > > bootdev_find_by_any(seq, &dev, &mflags): Expected 0x0 (0),
> > > > > > > > >> > > got 0xffffffed (-19) Test: bootdev_test_any: bootdev.c
> > > > > > > > >> > > (flat tree) test/boot/bootdev.c:160, bootdev_test_any(): 0
> > > > > > > > >> > > == bootdev_find_by_any(seq, &dev, &mflags): Expected 0x0
> > > > > > > > >> > > (0), got 0xffffffed (-19) Test 'bootdev_test_any' failed 2
> > > > > > > > >> > > times
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > And a nice segfault:
> > > > > > > > >> > > Test: bootflow_set_arg: bootflow.c
> > > > > > > > >> > > Test: bootflow_system: bootflow.c
> > > > > > > > >> > > [3]    569337 segmentation fault (core dumped)  ./u-boot
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > Maybe things are missing to run sandbox_defconfig on my
> > > > > > > > >> > > computer? With the sandbox64_defconfig there is not core
> > > > > > > > >> > > dump anymore but      
> > > > > > > there      
> > > > > > > > >> > > is still the failed line:
> > > > > > > > >> > > Test 'bootdev_test_bootable' failed 2 times
> > > > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > > > >> > > And the uboot is reboot infinitely during the bootflow
> > > > > > > > >> > > test: ./u-boot -T -c "ut bootstd"
> > > > > > > > >> > > https://termbin.com/alu5      
> > > > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > > > >> > I see the same thing you do when running them outside of
> > > > > > > > >> > pytest, but they're also fine within pytest.
> > > > > > > > >> > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/pytest/usage.html
> > > > > > > > >> > should      
> > > > > > > help      
> > > > > > > > >> > get you started, and you can just run all of the ut tests
> > > > > > > > >> > under 
> > > > > > > that.      
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> Weird I got errors also within pytest.
> > > > > > > > >> See the html test log attached generated by the following
> > > > > > > > >> command: ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox -k bootstd      
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Same. There's some implicit dependencies around I believe. Doing
> > > > > > > > > "-k      
> > > > > > > ut"      
> > > > > > > > > should work, as I tried that (via my wrapper around all this) as
> > > > > > > > > well      
> > > > > > > as      
> > > > > > > > > just running all the tests (which is longer).      
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's my understanding as well
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In Kory's log we see:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >         MMC:   Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument
> > > > > > > >            sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img'
> > > > > > > >         Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument
> > > > > > > >            sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img'
> > > > > > > >                    mmc_probe() mmc1 - probe failed: -1
> > > > > > > >         mmc2: 2 (SD)Can't map file 'mmc1.img': Invalid argument
> > > > > > > >            sandbox_mmc_probe() mmc1: Unable to map file 'mmc1.img'
> > > > > > > >         , mmc0: 0 (SD)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These mmc1.img are needed for the bootstd tests to run properly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > These mmc*.img are generated in test_ut.py (see
> > > > > > > > setup_cros_image() for example)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, In order to only run the bootstd tests, I think we need to to
> > > > > > > > run:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut
> > > > > > > >     $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k bootstd
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then we can just call:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k bootstd      
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ok after installing missing dependencies and running test_ut tests I
> > > > > > > have less
> > > > > > > errors but there are still bootflow errors. See the test-log
> > > > > > > attached. I suppose all the tests should pass, right?
> > > > > > >      
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How are you running the tests? This is described in the docs. Search
> > > > > > for 'tests'.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > https://docs.u-boot.org/en/latest/develop/tests_sandbox.html#running-sandbox-tests-directly
> > > > > >    
> > > > > 
> > > > > As discussed in the email thread running test directly does not work and
> > > > > segfault for the bootflow command.
> > > > > We have to run it under the test.py command to makes it work.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The log I sent was for the following command:
> > > > > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut
> > > > > 
> > > > > The two errors on bootflow on master are:
> > > > > Test: bootflow_cmd_menu: bootflow.c
> > > > > test/boot/bootflow.c:673, bootflow_cmd_menu(): 0 ==
> > > > > run_command("bootflow menu", 0): Expected 0x0 (0), got 0x1 (1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > test/boot/bootflow.c:718, bootflow_scan_menu(): console: 
> > > > > Expected 'Selected: Armbian',
> > > > >      got '<no-more-output>'
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tom do you face the same errors? If that's the case we should fix
> > > > > these.    
> > > > 
> > > > No, I can do:
> > > > $ git clean -dfx
> > > > $ ./test/py/test.py --bd sandbox --build -k test_ut
> > > > And the result is:
> > > > =============== 872 passed, 1 skipped, 608 deselected, 13398 warnings in
> > > > 55.73s ===============
> > > > 
> > > > And this is on top of tree master right now.  
> > > 
> > > Oh ok weird, I just tried again on my side but still got 6 tests that
> > > failed. These tests are not related to my series so lets ignore these.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I don't see how I can test the extension support in bootmeth efi
> > > with sandbox, and it would be better to test it on a real board. Or at
> > > least that it does not break bootmeth efi for the current hardware
> > > platform.  
> > 
> > Do you have other changes for v3? If not, I'll apply that soon and we
> > can add more tests in a follow-up, if Simon can explain his thinking on
> > how it would work. If you do have changes for v4, same comments about
> > testing apply but I'll move v3 to superseded in patchwork so I don't
> > forget.
>  
> As I said: "I saw that as I removed the extension hunter in this series it
> brings new test errors that need to be fixed."
> I think it is better avoid these CI build test errors and send a v4.

Thanks for clarifying, yes, I missed that at some point in this long
thread. :(

-- 
Tom

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]