MCFG test in fwts

[Colin Ian King]

On 02/04/15 09:38, Alex Hung wrote:
> 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.
> 
OK, Well, I will put it on my list to re-work some of these tests in the
Ubuntu Vivid + 1 cycle. It shouldn't be too much effort.

Colin