[LTP] [Automated-testing] [PATCH 1/2] tst_test: Add support for device discovery

[Michal Simek]

On 24. 06. 20 11:29, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
>>>> Not exactly sure how LTP handles this in general but I think it makes
>>>> sense to extend your test (txt_test) parameters to pass TX/RX channel
>>>> via parameters directly to test.
>>>>
>>>> Something like this
>>>> uart01_115200 uart01 -b 115200 -t /dev/ttyXX0 -r /dev/ttyXX1
>>>
>>> You can pass them in an environment variables. If UART_TX and UART_RX
>>> are set the device discovery is not attempted at all and the test just
>>> uses these.
>>>
>>> If they are not the script is executed and the test loops over the
>>> result(s). It would be more complicated if the devices were passed over
>>> command line parameters since we would have to re-execute the binary.
>>
>> I didn't run LTP for quite a long time myself but on xilinx devices you
>> have 3 different uart instances which you can wire: cadence uart (or
>> pl011), ns16550 and uartlite.
>> That means with the same hw design you should be able to to test
>> cadence<=>ns16550 and ns16550<=>uartlite. It means you need to exchange
>> variables in the middle of testing.
> 
> The whole point of the script is that it returns one configuration per
> line and the test then loops over these, which is a bit more flexible
> than runtest files.

ok. I expect this will end up that you will share example even with all
lines commented to show how people should use this script.

> 
>> Not sure if this is supported but I would simply generate runtest
>> description based on information I got from device discovery.
>> But I am far from testing at this stage.
> 
> The direction I would like to take in the long term is to slowly get rid
> of runtest files and replace them with database that would be used by
> the test execution framework to execute tests. There are too many
> limitations that are imposed by runtest files, which in the end shape
> the ways we think about tests. We should have get rid of these long time
> ago...

Hopefully that database won't be any complicated one to still have an
option to run LTP on constrained systems.

Definitely I agree with cleaning that runtest part.

Thanks,
Michal