Skip to contentSkip to conversation

test/py: Add option to skip SPL signature checking

PATCH Superseded Michal Simek 2 participants 3 messages Feb 23, 2016 – Feb 25, 2016

v2 of 3 Superseded Latest is v3 →

lore
Share & tools
lore

Michal Simek

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 test/py: Add option to skip SPL signature checking

Provide user option to skip SPL signature verification for cases where u-boot is build with SPL support but full U-Boot is also verified without SPL.

If you want to support this feature please add env__spl_skipped = True to your boardenv configuration file.

For example Xilinx Zynq is using this feature where the same U-Boot binary is checked with SPL and without SPL(with FSBL).

Signed-off-by Michal Simek <[email protected]>
Tested-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>
Acked-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>

---

Changes in v2:
- nits in commit message
- Rename to env_spl_skipped from env__spl_skipped

 test/py/u_boot_console_base.py | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +3 -1
index d6502c6e64cb..b48d07261ff2 100644
@@ -307,7 +307,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object):
             config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y'
             config_spl_serial_support = bcfg.get('config_spl_serial_support',
                                                  'n') == 'y'
-            if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support:
+            config_spl_skip = self.config.env.get('env_spl_skipped',
+                                                  False)
+            if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support and not config_spl_skip:
                 m = self.p.expect([pattern_u_boot_spl_signon] +
                                   self.bad_patterns)
                 if m != 0:
Signature · 1 line
1.9.1
#1 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 test/py: Add option to skip SPL signature checking

Quoted 7 lines · Michal Simek

Provide user option to skip SPL signature verification for cases where u-boot is build with SPL support but full U-Boot is also verified without SPL.

If you want to support this feature please add env__spl_skipped = True to your boardenv configuration file.

Quoted 6 lines

For example Xilinx Zynq is using this feature where the same U-Boot binary is checked with SPL and without SPL(with FSBL).

Signed-off-by Michal Simek <[email protected]>
Tested-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>
Acked-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>

Actually, NAK now...

test/py/u_boot_console_base.py class ConsoleBase(object): · line 311

Quoted 11 lines
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +2 -1
index d6502c6e64cb..b48d07261ff2 100644
@@ -307,7 +307,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object):
              config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y'
              config_spl_serial_support = bcfg.get('config_spl_serial_support',
                                                   'n') == 'y'
-            if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support:
+            config_spl_skip = self.config.env.get('env_spl_skipped',
+                                                  False)

I was talking about renaming the Python variable config_spl_skip, not the boardenv_*.py variable env__spl_skipped.

The boardenv_*.py variable should be env__* to match existing variables in the Python file.

I was requesting that the Python variable be named env_... not config_... since it contains "board environment" not "config" data.

(BTW, you probably want to Cc Tom Rini on the next patch version since I assume he'd apply this)

author
#2 lore raw

PATCH v2 1/1 test/py: Add option to skip SPL signature checking

Quoted 8 lines · Stephen Warren
Quoted 7 lines · Michal Simek

Provide user option to skip SPL signature verification for cases where u-boot is build with SPL support but full U-Boot is also verified without SPL.

If you want to support this feature please add env__spl_skipped = True to your boardenv configuration file.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines

For example Xilinx Zynq is using this feature where the same U-Boot binary is checked with SPL and without SPL(with FSBL).

Signed-off-by Michal Simek <[email protected]>
Tested-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>
Acked-by Stephen Warren <[email protected]>

Actually, NAK now...

I have removed your lines from v3.

Quoted 18 lines
Quoted 7 lines
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +0 -0
index d6502c6e64cb..b48d07261ff2 100644

test/py/u_boot_console_base.py class ConsoleBase(object): · line 312

Quoted 7 lines
test/py/u_boot_console_base.py +2 -1
@@ -307,7 +307,9 @@ class ConsoleBase(object):
              config_spl = bcfg.get('config_spl', 'n') == 'y'
              config_spl_serial_support =
 bcfg.get('config_spl_serial_support',
                                                   'n') == 'y'
-            if config_spl and config_spl_serial_support:
+            config_spl_skip = self.config.env.get('env_spl_skipped',
+                                                  False)

I was talking about renaming the Python variable config_spl_skip, not the boardenv_*.py variable env__spl_skipped.

Quoted 5 lines

The boardenv_*.py variable should be env__* to match existing variables in the Python file.

I was requesting that the Python variable be named env_... not config_... since it contains "board environment" not "config" data.

I misunderstood your description in v1.
Hopefully in v3 this will be correct.

Quoted 2 lines

(BTW, you probably want to Cc Tom Rini on the next patch version since I assume he'd apply this)

Done.

Thanks,
Michal