--- /dev/null
+.. SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+
+.. toctree::
+ :maxdepth: 1
+
+Binman Tests
+============
+
+.. contents::
+ :depth: 2
+ :local:
+
+There is some material on writing tests in the main Binman documentation
+(see :doc:`package/index`). This short guide is separate so people don't
+feel they have to read as much.
+
+Code and output is mostly included verbatim, which makes the doc longer, but
+avoids its becoming confusing when the output or referenced code changes in the
+future.
+
+Purpose
+-------
+
+The main purpose of tests in Binman is to make sure that Binman actually does
+what it is supposed to. Various people contribute code, refactoring is done
+over time, but U-Boot users (developers, SoC vendors, board vendors) rely on
+Binman producing images which function correctly. Without tests, a one-line
+change could unintentionally break a corner-case and the problem might not be
+noticed for months. Debugging an image-generation problem with a board you
+don't have can be very hard.
+
+A secondary purpose is productivity. U-Boot contributors are busy and often
+have too much on their plate. Trying to figure out why their patch broke
+some other vendor's workflow can be very time-consuming and frustrating. By
+building in tests from the start, this is largely avoided. If your change has
+full test coverage and doesn't break any test, all is well and no one can
+complain.
+
+A lessor purpose is to document what Binman actually does. If a test covers a
+feature, it works. If there is no test coverage, no one can say for sure
+whether it works in all expected situations, certainly not wihout manual
+effort.
+
+In fact, strictly speaking it isn't completely clear what 'works' even means in
+the case where these is no test to cover the code. We are often left guessing
+as to what the documentation means, what was actually intended, etc.
+
+Finally, code-coverage helps to remove 'zombie code', copied from elsewhere
+because it looks reasonable, but not actually needed. The same situation arises
+in silicon-chip design, where a part of the chip is not validated. If it isn't
+validated, it can be assumed not to work, either now or later, so it is best to
+remove that logic to avoid it causing problems.
+
+Setting up
+----------
+
+Binman tests use various utility programs. Most of these are documented in
+:doc:`../build/gcc`. But some are SoC-specific. To fetch these, tell Binman to
+fetch or build any missing tools:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman tool -f missing
+
+When this completes successfully, you can list the tools. You should see
+something like this:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman tool -l
+ Name Version Description Path
+ --------------- ----------- ------------------------- ------------------------------
+ bootgen ****** Bootg Xilinx Bootgen /home/sglass/.binman-tools/bootgen
+ bzip2 1.0.8 bzip2 compression /usr/bin/bzip2
+ cbfstool unknown Manipulate CBFS files /home/sglass/bin/cbfstool
+ fdt_add_pubkey unknown Generate image for U-Boot /home/sglass/bin/fdt_add_pubkey
+ fdtgrep unknown Grep devicetree files /home/sglass/bin/fdtgrep
+ fiptool v2.11.0(rele Manipulate ATF FIP files /home/sglass/.binman-tools/fiptool
+ futility v0.0.1-9f2e9 Chromium OS firmware utili /home/sglass/.binman-tools/futility
+ gzip 1.12 gzip compression /usr/bin/gzip
+ ifwitool unknown Manipulate Intel IFWI file /home/sglass/.binman-tools/ifwitool
+ lz4 v1.9.4 lz4 compression /usr/bin/lz4
+ lzma_alone 9.22 beta lzma_alone compression /usr/bin/lzma_alone
+ lzop v1.04 lzo compression /usr/bin/lzop
+ mkeficapsule 2024.10-rc5- mkeficapsule tool for gene /home/sglass/bin/mkeficapsule
+ mkimage 2024.10-rc5- Generate image for U-Boot /home/sglass/bin/mkimage
+ openssl 3.0.13 30 Ja openssl cryptography toolk /usr/bin/openssl
+ xz 5.4.5 xz compression /usr/bin/xz
+ zstd v1.5.5 zstd compression /usr/bin/zstd
+
+The tools are written to ``~/.binman-tools`` so add that to your ``PATH``.
+It's fine to have some of the tools elsewhere (e.g. ``~/bin``) so long as they
+are up-to-date. This allows you use the version of the tools intended for
+running tests.
+
+Now you should be able to actually run the tests:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman test
+ ======================== Running binman tests ========================
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ........
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Ran 568 tests in 2.578s
+
+ OK
+
+If this doesn't work, see if you can have some missing tools. Check that the
+dependencies are all there as above. If it is very slow, try installing
+concurrencytest so that the tests run in parallel.
+
+The next thing to set up is code coverage, using the -T flag:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman test -T
+ ======================== Running binman tests ========================
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ......................................................................
+ ........
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Ran 568 tests in 17.367s
+
+ OK
+
+ 99%
+ Name Stmts Miss Cover
+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ tools/binman/__init__.py 0 0 100%
+ tools/binman/bintool.py 263 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/bootgen.py 21 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/btool_gzip.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/bzip2.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/cbfstool.py 24 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/cst.py 15 4 73%
+ tools/binman/btool/fdt_add_pubkey.py 21 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/fdtgrep.py 26 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/fiptool.py 19 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/futility.py 19 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/ifwitool.py 22 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/lz4.py 22 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/lzma_alone.py 34 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/lzop.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/mkeficapsule.py 27 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/mkimage.py 23 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/openssl.py 42 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/xz.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/btool/zstd.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/cbfs_util.py 376 0 100%
+ tools/binman/cmdline.py 90 0 100%
+ tools/binman/control.py 409 0 100%
+ tools/binman/elf.py 241 0 100%
+ tools/binman/entry.py 548 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/alternates_fdt.py 58 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/atf_bl31.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/atf_fip.py 67 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob.py 49 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob_dtb.py 46 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob_ext.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob_ext_list.py 32 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob_named_by_arg.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/blob_phase.py 22 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/cbfs.py 101 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/collection.py 30 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/cros_ec_rw.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/efi_capsule.py 59 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/efi_empty_capsule.py 33 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/encrypted.py 34 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/fdtmap.py 62 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/files.py 35 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/fill.py 13 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/fit.py 311 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/fmap.py 37 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/gbb.py 37 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/image_header.py 53 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_cmc.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_descriptor.py 39 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fit.py 12 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fit_ptr.py 17 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fsp.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fsp_m.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fsp_s.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_fsp_t.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_ifwi.py 67 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_me.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_mrc.py 6 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_refcode.py 6 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_vbt.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/intel_vga.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/mkimage.py 84 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/null.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/nxp_imx8mcst.py 78 59 24%
+ tools/binman/etype/nxp_imx8mimage.py 38 6 84%
+ tools/binman/etype/opensbi.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/powerpc_mpc85xx_bootpg_resetvec.py 6 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/pre_load.py 76 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/rockchip_tpl.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/scp.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/section.py 418 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/tee_os.py 31 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/text.py 21 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/ti_board_config.py 139 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/ti_dm.py 5 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/ti_secure.py 65 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/ti_secure_rom.py 117 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_dtb.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_dtb_with_ucode.py 51 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_elf.py 19 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_env.py 27 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_expanded.py 4 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_img.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_nodtb.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_bss_pad.py 14 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_dtb.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_elf.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_expanded.py 12 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_nodtb.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_pubkey_dtb.py 32 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_spl_with_ucode_ptr.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_bss_pad.py 14 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_dtb.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_dtb_with_ucode.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_elf.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_expanded.py 12 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_nodtb.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_tpl_with_ucode_ptr.py 12 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_ucode.py 33 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl_bss_pad.py 14 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl_dtb.py 9 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl_elf.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl_expanded.py 12 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_vpl_nodtb.py 8 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/u_boot_with_ucode_ptr.py 42 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/vblock.py 38 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_reset16.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_reset16_spl.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_reset16_tpl.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_start16.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_start16_spl.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x86_start16_tpl.py 7 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/x509_cert.py 71 0 100%
+ tools/binman/etype/xilinx_bootgen.py 72 0 100%
+ tools/binman/fip_util.py 202 0 100%
+ tools/binman/fmap_util.py 49 0 100%
+ tools/binman/image.py 181 0 100%
+ tools/binman/state.py 201 0 100%
+ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ TOTAL 5954 69 99%
+
+ To get a report in 'htmlcov/index.html', type: python3-coverage html
+ Coverage error: 99%, but should be 100%
+ ValueError: Test coverage failure
+
+Unfortunately the run failed. As it suggests, create a report:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ python3-coverage html
+ Wrote HTML report to htmlcov/index.html
+
+If you open that file in the browser, you can see which files are not reaching
+100% and click on them. Here is ``nxp_imx8mimage.py``, for example:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ 43 # Generate mkimage configuration file similar to imx8mimage.cfg
+ 44 # and pass it to mkimage to generate SPL image for us here.
+ 45 cfg_fname = tools.get_output_filename('nxp.imx8mimage.cfg.%s' % uniq)
+ 46 with open(cfg_fname, 'w') as outf:
+ 47 print('ROM_VERSION v%d' % self.rom_version, file=outf)
+ 48 print('BOOT_FROM %s' % self.boot_from, file=outf)
+ 49 print('LOADER %s %#x' % (input_fname, self.loader_address), file=outf)
+ 50
+ 51 output_fname = tools.get_output_filename(f'cfg-out.{uniq}')
+ 52 args = ['-d', input_fname, '-n', cfg_fname, '-T', 'imx8mimage',
+ 53 output_fname]
+ 54 if self.mkimage.run_cmd(*args) is not None:
+ 55 return tools.read_file(output_fname)
+ 56 else:
+ 57 # Bintool is missing; just use the input data as the output
+ 58 x self.record_missing_bintool(self.mkimage)
+ 59 x return data
+ 60
+ 61 def SetImagePos(self, image_pos):
+ 62 # Customized SoC specific SetImagePos which skips the mkimage etype
+ 63 # implementation and removes the 0x48 offset introduced there. That
+ 64 # offset is only used for uImage/fitImage, which is not the case in
+ 65 # here.
+ 66 upto = 0x00
+ 67 for entry in super().GetEntries().values():
+ 68 x entry.SetOffsetSize(upto, None)
+ 69
+ 70 # Give up if any entries lack a size
+ 71 x if entry.size is None:
+ 72 x return
+ 73 x upto += entry.size
+ 74
+ 75 Entry_section.SetImagePos(self, image_pos)
+
+Most of the file is covered, but the lines marked with ``x`` indicate missing
+coverage. The will show up red in your browser.
+
+What is a test?
+---------------
+
+A test is a function in ``ftest.py`` which uses an image description in
+``tools/binman/test`` to perform some operations and exercise the code. Some
+tests are just a few lines; some are more complicated.
+
+Here is a simple test:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ def testSimple(self):
+ """Test a simple binman with a single file"""
+ data = self._DoReadFile('005_simple.dts')
+ self.assertEqual(U_BOOT_DATA, data)
+
+This test tells Binman to build an image using the description. Then it checks
+that the resulting image looks correct. The image description is:
+
+.. code-block:: devicetree
+
+ /dts-v1/;
+
+ / {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+
+ binman {
+ u-boot {
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+As you will know from the Binman documentation, this says that there is
+one image and it contains the U-Boot binary. So this test builds an image
+consisting of a U-Boot binary, then checks that it does indeed have just a
+U-Boot binary in it.
+
+Test data
+---------
+
+Using real binaries (like ``u-boot.bin``) to test Binman would be quite tedious.
+Every output file would be large and it would be hard to tell by looking at the
+output (e.g. with a hex dump) if a particular entry contains ``u-boot.bin`` or
+``u-boot-spl.bin`` or something else.
+
+Binman gets around this by using simple placeholders. Here is the placeholder
+for u-boot.bin:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ U_BOOT_DATA = b'1234'
+
+This is just bytes. So the test above checks that the output image contains
+these four bytes. This makes verification fast for Binman and very easy for
+humans.
+
+Even the devicetree is a placeholder:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ U_BOOT_DTB_DATA = b'udtb'
+
+But for some tests you need to use the real devicetree. In that case you can
+use ``_DoReadFileRealDtb()``. See ``testUpdateFdtAll()`` for an example of how
+to check the devicetree updated by Binman.
+
+Test structure
+--------------
+
+Each test is designed to test just one thing. Binman tests are named according
+to what they are testing. Individually they don't do very much, but as a whole
+they test every line of code in Binman.
+
+So ``testSimple()`` is designed to check that Binman can build the
+simplest-possible image that isn't completely empty.
+
+Another type of test is one which checks error-handling, for example:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ def testFillNoSize(self):
+ """Test for an fill entry type with no size"""
+ with self.assertRaises(ValueError) as e:
+ self._DoReadFile('070_fill_no_size.dts')
+ self.assertIn("'fill' entry is missing properties: size",
+ str(e.exception))
+
+This test deliberately tries to provoke an error. The image description is:
+
+.. code-block:: devicetree
+
+ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+ /dts-v1/;
+
+ / {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+
+ binman {
+ size = <16>;
+ fill {
+ fill-byte = [ff];
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+You can see that there is no size for the 'fill' entry, so we would expect
+Binman to complain. The test checks that it actually does. It also checks the
+error message produced by Binman. Sometimes you need to add several tests, each
+with their own broken image description, in order to check all the error cases.
+
+Sometimes you need to capture the console output of Binman, to check it is
+correct. You can to this with ``test_util.capture_sys_output()``, for example:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ with test_util.capture_sys_output() as (_, stderr):
+ self._DoTestFile('071_gbb.dts', force_missing_bintools='futility',
+ entry_args=entry_args)
+ err = stderr.getvalue()
+ self.assertRegex(err, "Image 'image'.*missing bintools.*: futility")
+
+The test collects the output and checks it with a regular expression. If you
+need to see the test output (e.g. to debug it), you will have to remove that
+capture line.
+
+How to add a new test
+---------------------
+
+This section explains the process of writing a new test. It uses an example to
+help with this, but your code will be different.
+
+Generally you are adding a test because you are adding a new entry type
+('etype'). So start by creating the shortest and simplest image-description you
+can, which contains the new etype. Put it in a numbered file in
+``tool/binman/test`` so that it comes last. All the numbers are unique and there
+are no gaps.
+
+Example from ``tools/binman/test/339_nxp_imx8.dts``:
+
+.. code-block:: devicetree
+
+ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+
+ /dts-v1/;
+
+ / {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+
+ binman {
+ nxp-imx8mimage {
+ args; /* TODO: Needed by mkimage etype superclass */
+ nxp,boot-from = "sd";
+ nxp,rom-version = <1>;
+ nxp,loader-address = <0x10>;
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+Note that you should use tabs in the file, not spaces. You can see that this has
+been cut down to the bare minimum, just enough to include the etype and the
+arguments it needs. This is of course not a real image. It will not boot on
+anything. But that's fine; we are just trying to test this one etype. Try not
+to add any other sections and etypes unless they are absolutely essential for
+your test to work. This helps others too: they don't need to understand the full
+complexity of your etype just to read your test.
+
+Then create your test by adding a new function at the end of ``ftest.py``:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ def testNxpImx8Image(self):
+ """Test that binman can produce an iMX8 image"""
+ self._DoTestFile('339_nxp_imx8.dts')
+
+This uses the test file that you created. It doesn't check anything, it just
+runs the image description through binman.
+
+Let's run it:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman test testNxpImx8Image
+ ======================== Running binman tests ========================
+ .
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Ran 1 test in 0.242s
+
+ OK
+
+So the test passes. It doesn't really do a lot, but it does exercise the etype.
+The next step is to update it to actually check the output:
+
+.. code-block:: python
+
+ def testNxpImx8Image(self):
+ """Test that binman can produce an iMX8 image"""
+ data = self._DoReadFile('339_nxp_imx8.dts')
+ print('data', len(data))
+
+The ``_DoReadFile()`` function is documented in the code. It returns the image
+contents as the first part of a tuple.
+
+Running this we see:
+
+.. code-block:: bash
+
+ data 2200
+
+So it is producing a little over 8K of data. Your etype will be different, but
+in any case you can add Python code to check that this data is actually correct,
+based on your knowledge of your etype. Note that you should not be checking
+whether the external tools (called 'bintools' in Binman) are actually working,
+since presumably they have their own tests. You just need to check that the
+image seems reasonable, e.g. is not empty, contains the expected sections, etc.
+
+When your etype does use a bintool, it also needs tests, but generally it will
+be tested by virtue of the etype test. This is because your etype must call the
+bintool to create the image. Sometimes you might need to add a test for a
+bintool error-condition, though.
+
+Finishing code coverage
+-----------------------
+
+The objective is to have test-coverage for every line of code that you add to
+Binman. So how can you tell? First, get a coverage report as described above.
+Look through the output for any files which are not at 100%. Add more test cases
+(image descriptions and new functions in ``ftest.py``) until you have covered
+each line.
+
+In the above example, here are some possible steps:
+
+#. The first red bit is where the ``mkimage`` call returns None. This can be
+ traced to ``Bintoolmkimage.mkimage()`` which calls
+ ``Bintool.run_cmd_result()`` and ``None`` means that ``mkimage`` is missing.
+ So the etype has code to handle that case, but it is never used. You can
+ look for other examples of ``self.mkimage`` returning ``None`` - e.g.
+ ``Entry_mkimage.BuildSectionData()`` does this. The clue for finding this is
+ that the ``nxp-imx8mimage`` etype is based on ``Entry_mkimage``:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ class Entry_nxp_imx8mimage(Entry_mkimage):
+
+ It must be tested somewhere...in this case ``testMkimage()`` doesn't do it,
+ but ``testMkimageMissing()`` immediately below that does. So you can create a
+ similar test, e.g.:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ def testNxpImx8ImageMkimageMissing(self):
+ """Test that binman can produce an iMX8 image"""
+ with test_util.capture_sys_output() as (_, stderr):
+ self._DoTestFile('339_nxp_imx8.dts',
+ force_missing_bintools='mkimage')
+ err = stderr.getvalue()
+ self.assertRegex(err, "Image 'image'.*missing bintools.*: mkimage")
+
+ Note that this uses exactly the same image description as the first test.
+ It just checks what happens when the tool is missing. Checking the coverage
+ again, you will see that the first red bit has gone:
+
+ .. code-block:: bash
+
+ $ binman test -T
+ $ python3-coverage html
+
+#. The second red bit is for ``SetImagePos()``. You can see that it is iterating
+ through the sub-entries inside the ``nxp-imx8mimage`` entry. In the case of
+ the 339 file, there are no such entries, so this code inside the for() loop
+ isn't used:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ def SetImagePos(self, image_pos):
+ # Customized SoC specific SetImagePos which skips the mkimage etype
+ # implementation and removes the 0x48 offset introduced there. That
+ # offset is only used for uImage/fitImage, which is not the case in
+ # here.
+ upto = 0x00
+ for entry in super().GetEntries().values():
+ entry.SetOffsetSize(upto, None)
+
+ # Give up if any entries lack a size
+ if entry.size is None:
+ return
+ upto += entry.size
+
+ Entry_section.SetImagePos(self, image_pos)
+
+ The solution is to add an entry, e.g. in ``340_nxp_imx8_non_empty.dts``:
+
+ .. code-block:: devicetree
+
+ // SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+
+ /dts-v1/;
+
+ / {
+ #address-cells = <1>;
+ #size-cells = <1>;
+
+ binman {
+ nxp-imx8mimage {
+ args; /* TODO: Needed by mkimage etype superclass */
+ nxp,boot-from = "sd";
+ nxp,rom-version = <1>;
+ nxp,loader-address = <0x10>;
+
+ u-boot {
+ };
+ };
+ };
+ };
+
+ Now write a little test to use it:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ def testNxpImx8ImageNonEmpty(self):
+ """Test that binman can produce an iMX8 image with something in it"""
+ data = self._DoReadFile('340_nxp_imx8_non_empty.dts')
+ # check data here
+
+ With that, the second red bit goes away, because the for() loop is now used.
+
+#. There is one more red bit left, the ``return`` in ``SetImagePos()``. The
+ above effort got the for() loop to be executed, but it doesn't cover the
+ ``return``. It might have been copied from some other etype, e.g. the mkimage
+ one. See ``Entry_mkimage.SetImagePos()`` which contains the code:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ for entry in self.GetEntries().values():
+ entry.SetOffsetSize(upto, None)
+
+ # Give up if any entries lack a size
+ if entry.size is None:
+ return
+ upto += entry.size
+
+ But which test covers that code for mkimage? By figuring that out, you could
+ use a similar technique. One way to find out is to delete the two lines in
+ ``Entry_mkimage`` which check for entry.size being None and returning, then
+ see what breaks with ``binman test``:
+
+ .. code-block:: bash
+
+ ERROR: binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageCollection (subunit.RemotedTestCase)
+ binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageCollection
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ testtools.testresult.real._StringException: Traceback (most recent call last):
+ TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'int' and 'NoneType'
+
+ ======================================================================
+ ERROR: binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageImage (subunit.RemotedTestCase)
+ binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageImage
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ testtools.testresult.real._StringException: Traceback (most recent call last):
+ TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'int' and 'NoneType'
+
+ ======================================================================
+ ERROR: binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageSpecial (subunit.RemotedTestCase)
+ binman.ftest.TestFunctional.testMkimageSpecial
+ ----------------------------------------------------------------------
+ testtools.testresult.real._StringException: Traceback (most recent call last):
+ TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'int' and 'NoneType'
+
+ We can verify that you got the right test, by putting the lines back in and
+ getting coverage for just that test:
+
+ .. code-block:: bash
+
+ binman test -T testMkimageCollection
+ python3-coverage html
+
+ You will see a lot of red since we are seeing test coverage just for one
+ test, but if you look in ``mkimage.py`` at ``SetImagePos()`` you will see
+ that the ``return`` is covered (i.e. it is marked green).
+
+ Looking at the ``.dts`` files for each of these tests, none jumps out as
+ being relevant to our case. It seems that this code just isn't needed, so the
+ best solution is to delete those two lines from the function:
+
+ .. code-block:: python
+
+ def SetImagePos(self, image_pos):
+ # Customized SoC specific SetImagePos which skips the mkimage etype
+ # implementation and removes the 0x48 offset introduced there. That
+ # offset is only used for uImage/fitImage, which is not the case in
+ # here.
+ upto = 0x00
+ for entry in super().GetEntries().values():
+ entry.SetOffsetSize(upto, None)
+ upto += entry.size
+
+ Entry_section.SetImagePos(self, image_pos)
+
+We should check the updated code on a real build, to make sure it really
+isn't needed, of course.
+
+Now, the test coverage is complete!
+
+If we later discover a case where those lines are needed, we can add the
+lines back, along with a test for this case.
+
+Getting help
+------------
+
+If you are stuck and cannot work out how to add test coverage for your entry
+type, ask on the U-Boot mailing list, cc ``Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>`` or
+on irc ``sjg1``
projects / u-boot.git / commitdiff
