On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 5:44 AM Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 06/09/2022 18.31, Patrick Venture wrote:
> > The register tests walks all the registers to verify they are initially
> > 0 when appropriate.  However, if the MAC address is set in the register
> >    space, this should not be checked against 0.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Hao Wu <wuhaotsh@google.com>
> > Change-Id: I02426e39bdab33ceedd42c49d233e8680d4ec058
>
> What's that change-id good for?
>

Oops, sorry about that.  I can send out a v2 without it, or during
application someone can nicely trim it? :)


>
> > Signed-off-by: Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>
> > ---
> >   tests/qtest/npcm7xx_emc-test.c | 3 ++-
> >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_emc-test.c
> b/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_emc-test.c
> > index 7c435ac915..207d8515b7 100644
> > --- a/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_emc-test.c
> > +++ b/tests/qtest/npcm7xx_emc-test.c
> > @@ -378,7 +378,8 @@ static void test_init(gconstpointer test_data)
> >
> >   #undef CHECK_REG
> >
> > -    for (i = 0; i < NUM_CAMML_REGS; ++i) {
> > +    /* Skip over the MAC address registers, which is BASE+0 */
> > +    for (i = 1; i < NUM_CAMML_REGS; ++i) {
> >           g_assert_cmpuint(emc_read(qts, mod, REG_CAMM_BASE + i * 2), ==,
> >                            0);
> >           g_assert_cmpuint(emc_read(qts, mod, REG_CAML_BASE + i * 2), ==,
>
> Basically ack, but one question: Where should that non-zero MAC address
> come
> from / when did you hit a problem here? If QEMU is started without any mac
> settings at all (like it is done here), the register never contains a
> non-zero value, does it?
>

So, there's a bug in the emc device presently where that value isn't set
when it should be.  I have that bug fixed, but for whatever reason,
probably not enough caffeine, I didn't bundle the two patches together.


>
>   Thomas
>
>