Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] tests/fw_cfg: Run the tests on big-endian targets

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 10/07/19 17:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> We have been restricting our fw_cfg tests to the PC machine,
> which is a little-endian architecture.
> The fw_cfg device is also used on the SPARC and PowerPC
> architectures, which can run in big-endian configuration.
> 
> Since we want to be sure our device does not regress
> regardless the endianess used, enable this test one
> these targets.
> 
> The NUMA selector is X86 specific, restrict it to this arch.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <address@hidden>
> ---
> v2: test ppc32 too (lvivier)
> ---
>  tests/Makefile.include |  2 ++
>  tests/fw_cfg-test.c    | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/Makefile.include b/tests/Makefile.include
> index 3543451ed3..4ae3d5140a 100644
> --- a/tests/Makefile.include
> +++ b/tests/Makefile.include
> @@ -226,6 +226,7 @@ check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/drive_del-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/boot-serial-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-ppc-$(CONFIG_M48T59) += tests/m48t59-test$(EXESUF)
> +check-qtest-ppc-y += tests/fw_cfg-test$(EXESUF)
>  
>  check-qtest-ppc64-y += $(check-qtest-ppc-y)
>  check-qtest-ppc64-$(CONFIG_PSERIES) += tests/device-plug-test$(EXESUF)
> @@ -250,6 +251,7 @@ check-qtest-sh4eb-$(CONFIG_ISA_TESTDEV) = 
> tests/endianness-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/m48t59-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/boot-serial-test$(EXESUF)
> +check-qtest-sparc-y += tests/fw_cfg-test$(EXESUF)
>  
>  check-qtest-sparc64-$(CONFIG_ISA_TESTDEV) = tests/endianness-test$(EXESUF)
>  check-qtest-sparc64-y += tests/prom-env-test$(EXESUF)
> diff --git a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> index 35af0de7e6..1250e87097 100644
> --- a/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> +++ b/tests/fw_cfg-test.c
> @@ -210,13 +210,30 @@ static void test_fw_cfg_splash_time(const void *opaque)
>  
>  int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  {
> -    QTestCtx ctx;
> -    int ret;
> +    const char *arch = qtest_get_arch();
> +    bool has_numa = false;
> +    QTestCtx ctx = {};
> +    int ret = 0;
>  
>      g_test_init(&argc, &argv, NULL);
>  
> -    ctx.machine_name = "pc";
> -    ctx.fw_cfg = pc_fw_cfg_init();
> +    if (g_str_equal(arch, "i386") || g_str_equal(arch, "x86_64")) {
> +        has_numa = true;
> +        ctx.machine_name = "pc";
> +        ctx.fw_cfg = pc_fw_cfg_init();
> +    } else if (g_str_equal(arch, "sparc")) {
> +        ctx.machine_name = "SS-5";
> +        ctx.fw_cfg = mm_fw_cfg_init(0xd00000510ULL);
> +    } else if (g_str_equal(arch, "ppc") || g_str_equal(arch, "ppc64")) {
> +        /*
> +         * The mac99 machine is different for 32/64-bit target:
> +         *
> +         * ppc(32): the G4 which can be either little or big endian,
> +         * ppc64:   the G5 (970FX) is only big-endian.
> +         */
> +        ctx.machine_name = "mac99";
> +        ctx.fw_cfg = mm_fw_cfg_init(0xf0000510);
> +    }
>  
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/signature", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_signature);
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/id", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_id);
> @@ -231,14 +248,18 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>      qtest_add_func("fw_cfg/boot_device", test_fw_cfg_boot_device);
>  #endif
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/max_cpus", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_max_cpus);
> -    qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/numa", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_numa);
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/boot_menu", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_boot_menu);
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/reboot_timeout", &ctx,
>                          test_fw_cfg_reboot_timeout);
>      qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/splash_time", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_splash_time);
>  
> -    ret = g_test_run();
> +    if (has_numa) {
> +        qtest_add_data_func("fw_cfg/numa", &ctx, test_fw_cfg_numa);
> +    }
>  
> +    if (ctx.machine_name) {
> +        ret = g_test_run();
> +    }
>      g_free(ctx.fw_cfg);
>  
>      return ret;
> 

Too many foreign arch bits in this patch for me to give an R-b, but
structurally it looks OK to me.

Acked-by: Laszlo Ersek <address@hidden>

Thanks
Laszlo