[RFC] SBBR Test Case Additions to FWTS

[Jeffrey Hugo]

Hi Supreeth,

On 1/10/2017 10:09 AM, Supreeth Venkatesh wrote:
> This Server Base Boot Requirements (SBBR) specification is intended for
> SBSA-compliant 64-bit ARMv8 servers.
>
> It defines the base firmware requirements for out-of-box support of any
> ARM SBSA-compatible Operating System or hypervisor.
>
> The requirements in this specification are expected to be minimal yet
> complete for booting a multi-core ARMv8 server platform, while leaving
> plenty of room
>
> for OEM or ODM innovations and design details.
>
> For more information, download the SBBR specification
> <http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc.den0044b/index.html>
>
>
>
> 1.      This specification is closely aligned with ACPI 6.0
> Specification. However, there are slight variations in some of the test
> cases.
>
> For instance, Existing FWTS Implementation just logs a warning message
> for SPCR missing table, However, as per the SBBR specification, we will
> need to fail the test.
>
> Question: What’s the recommendation for handling these kind of variations?
>
> a)      Should we create a transient branch(SBBR) in FWTS specific to ARMv8?
>
> b)     Should we separate at runtime this by adding a command line
> parameter –sbbr?
>
>
>
> 2.      SMBIOS test cases present in FWTS currently employ /dev/mem
> based on legacy x86 methods.
>
> However, in ARMv8 implementation, we will need to disable mem feature in
> kernel and modify it slightly from existing implementation.
>
> How do you suggest we go about it?
>
> a)      Compile time separation using AARCH64 or similar switch?
>
> b)     Runtime separation if(ARCH == AARCH64) or something similar?
>
>
>
> Once, the above two questions have been answered and we arrive at a
> solution which is easier to maintain, will send out a list of patches
> related to SBBR.
>
> Thanks in advance for your inputs.

Can you elaborate on the motivation for adding SBBR compliance to FWTS?

SBBR is ARM specific, yet FWTS is architecture agnostic in its purpose. 
While my primary interest is ARM, it sounds like to add SBBR testing to 
FWTS requires the addition of a bunch of ARM specific tweaks that don't 
play well with other architectures.  Greater ARM support is nice, but 
not at the cost of not playing well with others.

Additionally, ARM (the company) has already published a SBBR compliance 
test at https://github.com/ARM-software/arm-enterprise-acs

Why duplicate that in FWTS?

>
> IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are
> confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the
> contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy
> the information in any medium. Thank you.
>
>

I don't believe this signature is appropriate for public mailing lists.


-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.