From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 14:24:30 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 0/5] Another attempt at hardware discovery In-Reply-To: References: <20210224165045.17738-1-chrubis@suse.cz> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > I think this has many advantages over the first edition, In out Internal Test??? > we use a similar way to define the test prerequires as JSON structor.[1] > here is My opinion, In the LTP testcase framework, we can set all the > prerequires > in a JSONfile, these prerquires include CONFIGS, ABIs, > devices-path(sys???proc,dev etc.), > the SETUP stage to check if the machine satisfy the defined-Json. > at the same time??? we also need a scripts to generate a JSON-file from > the current machine to collect all the prerequires list. > In this way, the benefit not just device-driver, but alse common testcase We actually have something like this implemented. We generate a big JSON file on LTP build that describes the whole testsuite, but it includes more than just pre-requisites, have a look at docparse/metadata.json that is generated in recent LTP builds. As for kernel config dependencies we have needs_kconfigs array, which is actually an array of boolean expressions on kernel config options where each of them has to be true in order for a test to continue. So to find out if we have a suitable kernel config for a test we have to check if all are true in: "tests": { "test_name": { "needs_kconfigs": [ "CONFIG_FOO=y | CONFIG_BAR=m", "!CONFIG_DAR=y" ] } } We do not have the "file" part that would match the functionality you have in your code but that shouldn't be hard to add. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz