From: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2024 09:56:26 +0000 (+0200)
Subject: test: boot: fix bootflow_cmd_label for when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled
X-Git-Url: http://git.dujemihanovic.xyz/img/%7B%7B%20%24style.RelPermalink%20%7D%7D?a=commitdiff_plain;h=625d40ab120dbc6f45dbd975857f8f87e422bd0f;p=u-boot.git

test: boot: fix bootflow_cmd_label for when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled

When DSA_SANDBOX is not set, the sandbox tests fail as follows:

 $ ./test/py/test.py --build-dir=$(pwd) -k bootdev_test_any
 [...]
 Scanning for bootflows with label '9'
 [...]
 Cannot find '9' (err=-19)

This is due to the device list containing two less entries than
expected. Therefore, look for label '7' when DSA_SANDBOX is disabled.

The actual use case is NET_LWIP=y (to be introduced in later patches)
which implies DSA_SANDBOX=n for the time being.

Signed-off-by: Jerome Forissier <jerome.forissier@linaro.org>
---

diff --git a/test/boot/bootflow.c b/test/boot/bootflow.c
index 6ad63afe90..154dea70a5 100644
--- a/test/boot/bootflow.c
+++ b/test/boot/bootflow.c
@@ -109,9 +109,17 @@ static int bootflow_cmd_label(struct unit_test_state *uts)
 	 * 8   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc2.bootdev
 	 * 9   [ + ]      OK  mmc       mmc1.bootdev
 	 * a   [   ]      OK  mmc       mmc0.bootdev
+	 *
+	 * However with CONFIG_DSA_SANDBOX=n we have two fewer (dsa-test@0 and
+	 * dsa-test@1).
 	 */
-	ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));
-	ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");
+	if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DSA_SANDBOX)) {
+		ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 9", 0));
+		ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '9'");
+	} else {
+		ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 7", 0));
+		ut_assert_nextline("Scanning for bootflows with label '7'");
+	}
 	ut_assert_skip_to_line("(1 bootflow, 1 valid)");
 
 	ut_assertok(run_command("bootflow scan -lH 0", 0));