Hi David,
On 23.11.2010 01:31, David Hendricks wrote:
Once upon a time, testing flashrom was simple: Read, erase, write, verify, done.
Over the past few months, we've introduced some very important features to Flashrom. Unfortunately, testing is no longer quite so simple. Partial writes require that we test various patterns (and we do with a newly introduced torture script), and we do that to some extend with the torture test that we recently checked in. Embedded controllers introduce a whole other world of pain. Long story short, a better testing strategy is needed.
Indeed. The biggest problem with any tests right now is that you can either write them for the flashrom-chromium tree or for mainline flashrom because the flashrom messages are incompatible/different.
To get the ball rolling, I have a work-in-progress patch for the Chromium.org branch of Flashrom right now to introduce a unit testing framework and would appreciate thoughts / comments: http://codereview.chromium.org/5136001 . You can download the unified diff from there (as to avoid duplication here). It's written in shell script (tested on dash and bash) since I felt that's the lowest common denominator and the lowest barrier-to-entry for folks wanting to add/modify the tests. Feel free to post comments in this thread, since the code review will be closed once the code is checked in.
"Code review will be closed" means the comments will be unaccessible after checkin?
The idea is simple: One master script does generic setup, backs up the firmware image, runs unit tests, and unconditionally restores the firmware image at the end.
Agreed. Here is an interesting question: Given that the initial backup and the final restore are done with the system flashrom binary, shouldn't we try to restore the backup directly after making the backup? If that fails, we can't restore the image at the end, and we're better off detecting this problem before we mess with the chip.
The user sets a few (hopefully no more than two or three) environment variables and runs the master script, specifying desired unit tests as arguments on the command line. Each unit test should be independent, and should have its own documentation in case it needs special environment variables or something. Due to the variety of tests which may be performed, it's up to the user to decide which tests to run on their hardware.
In this case we should warn the user that each of the tests has the potential to brick his device. AFAICS the partial write torture test can/will result in a hanging EC if the EC code lives in the bottom 128 kB of the flash chip.
If you're curious to try the patch, here is a simple invocation that will test partial writes for an x86 BIOS chip: ./do_tests.sh partial_writes_x86_bios.sh
I've attached some sample console output for a test run that does partial writes for x86 BIOS chip and some write protection commands. In this example, I had to pass in some env variables and specify multiple tests as arguments. The invocation: FLASHROM="../flashrom" FLASHROM_PARAM="-p internal:bus=spi" sh do_tests.sh partial_writes_x86_bios.sh chip_size.sh wp-toggle.sh wp-range.sh
Why the "sh" after FLASHROM_PARAM="..."?
If I were to test some EC stuff, I'd need to add additional parameters since my EC test script requires a special layout file and an secondary EC firmware image: LAYOUT_FILE=/tmp/ec_layout.txt ALT_EC_IMAGE=/tmp/alt_ec_image.bin FLASHROM="../flashrom" FLASHROM_PARAM="-p internal:bus=lpc" ./do_tests.sh partial_writes_ec.sh
The big question for the size and protection tests is what you actually intend to test and whether the test will work with any chips besides the one you wrote the tests for. This is not a complaint directed at the RFC, it is rather a hint that writing good tests is hard (but you already know that).
Overall, I think that more tests are good.
Regards, Carl-Daniel