MCFG test in fwts

[Colin Ian King]

I'm inclined to put the per-table tests into their own test from now on,
and maybe move some of the more complex tests in acpitables into their
own test.  That way, a user can run just a specific table test if they
require so; the default will run all the tests anyhow, so it won't make
much difference.

I am concerned that the acpitables test will just become a huge test
source file which becomes unmanageably huge once we implement per-table
tests for all the more complex tables.

And some of the older tests such as hpet_check should be rename to hpet.

Colin

On 24/03/15 15:32, Colin Ian King wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> Due to "historical" implementation reasons (e.g. I messed up), we have a
> MCFG test on its own, and also a MCFG stub that does not a lot in the
> "acpitables" test.
> 
> Should we keep the MCFG stand-alone test and remove the stub from the
> acpitables test, or should we integrate the MCFG test into the
> acpitables?  As it stands, it is a bit confusing and needs some attention.
> 
> Colin
> 
>