MCFG test in fwts

[Alex Hung]

On 04/01/2015 10:21 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
> 
> 

This sounds good to me. It is also easier to communicate with BIOS
engineers when a test for a particular table fails.

-- 
Cheers,
Alex Hung