[OE-core] [RFC OE-core/meta/lib] BSP Specific Qemurunner

[Sipke Vriend]

Hi Stefan,

On Thursday, 9 January 2014 10:19 PM, Stanacar, StefanX wrote:
>On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 00:01 +0000, Sipke Vriend wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 11:53 PM Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> >
>> >On Wednesday 08 January 2014 13:12:41 Richard Purdie wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 22:59 +0000, Sipke Vriend wrote:
>> >> > Hi Richard,
>> >> > 
>> >> > >-----Original Message-----
>> >> > >On Wednesday, 8 January 2014 12:00 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >On Tue, 2014-01-07 at 03:09 +0000, Sipke Vriend wrote:
>> >> > >> Hi,
>> >> > >> 
>> >> > >> This RFC is a proposal to allow BSP layers to setup qemu with their
>> >> > >> specific requirements for the testimage oe-core functionality.
>> >> > >> The suggested changes will be exercised by the
>> >> > >> bitbake -c testimage <image>
>> >> > >> command.
>> >> > >> Similarly to the oeqa test cases this proposal extends the
>> >> > >> meta/lib/oeqa
>> >> > >> python modules to allow inclusion of python utility scripts in the BSP
>> >> > >> layers.
>> >> > >> Any BSP layer wishing to supply their own qemu setup would need to
>> >> > >> create
>> >> > >> an appropriate meta-bsplayer/lib/oeqa/utils/<machine>starter.py
>> >> > >> The effect is that the lib/oeqa/utils/qemurunner will either allow the
>> >> > >> bsp layer provided <machine>starter to spawn qemu or if not provided,
>> >> > >> spawn qemu via runqemu as currently.
>> >> > >> An example bsp layer is available here:
>> >> > >> https://github.com/sipke/meta-xilinx/tree/sipke/qemurunner
>> >> > >> with all required additions in the meta-xilinx/lib directory.
>> >> > >> 
>> >> > >> This RFC is triggered by and indirectly related to
>> >> > >> Bugzilla report "runqemu shouldn't hard-code machine knowledge"
>> >> > >> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4827
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Why would we do this rather than improve runqemu to be extendable from
>> >> > >BSP layers?
>> >> > 
>> >> > Proposing as an additional way to launch qemu for oeqa testimage
>> >> > functionality, Improving runqemu can and probably should still happen.
>> >> > 
>> >> > To consider:
>> >> > * it keeps testimage functionality (for bsp layers specific things) in
>> >> > the lib directly (similar to test cases) and as python.
>> >> > * testing (via testimage) may have a different requirement to that of
>> >> > running runqemu on the command line, so an alternate way to launch qemu
>> >> > could be useful.
>> >> > * should this approach of extending the oeqa testimage functionality
>> >> > into bsp layers be accepted, this could allow also for bsp specific
>> >> > hardware setup for testimage functionality in bsp layers.
>> >> > 
>> >> > Primary aim is a solution which allows the bsp layer to control the
>> >> > setup of qemu (and eventually hardware) for testimage functionality. This
>> >> > is a proposal towards that goal.
>> >> 
>> >> I thought Stefan was already also working on something towards this
>> >> goal. I'd like to ensure we don't end up with two things doing the same
>> >> thing.
>> >> 
>> >> Stefan?
>> >> 
>> 
>> Agreed. One solution is desired. Happy to coordinate with and assist Stefan,
>> either implementing part of a solution (proposed one or another) and/or 
>> testing whatever Stefan comes up with against our bsp layer.
>
>I'm sorry for replying so late, this has been a slow week. I'm a bit
>confused because last time I checked I wasn't working on something
>similar :) (layer-controlled qemu/bsp setup), but I'm happy to help.
>

No worries, you're not late and sorry for having inadvertently dragged 
you in it seems :)

>I've looked at the patches themselves, and they are okay, but I'm not
>sure a layer-specific qemu setup for testimage is what we should do in
>the long term. 
>Now, I can see the problem you are trying to fix here and
>why you need this... I always assumed that a BSP layer is mostly about
>real hw and that runqemu will deal with any qemu machine. So, as Richard
>said, we should probably fix runqemu.
>

Ok, let's fix runqemu for qemu setup, and see from that whether any 
changes are required within qemurunner.py or not. I can envisage there 
might be to remove some dependencies on infrastructure setup, 
but will not know for sure till the work is started.
Has someone started and is there a branch available to track this work?

>Now, I really like the idea of a layer-controlled/extendable target
>setup (be it qemu or hardware) and I think we should allow a layer to
>extend lib/oeqa/targetcontrol.py and provide (or extend) its own
>TEST_TARGET (besides qemu and simpleremote). That will prove more useful
>for hw stuff and it will allow a layer to completely control deployment
>of a qemu target too (deploy, start, stop, running commands, etc). E.g:
>perhaps a layer doesn't like the use of the ext3 images for qemu and
>needs to use something else. Thoughts?
>

Great, I like it. Will give it some more thought, but even the simple
addition of allowing a bsp layer to provide its own TEST_TARGET class is a
great step forward.

Thanks
Sipke


>Cheers,
>Stefan
>