-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
trunner: armv7a9: provide soft restarts #305
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Unit Test Results7 688 tests - 37 6 943 ✅ - 67 35m 38s ⏱️ - 1m 26s For more details on these failures, see this check. Results for commit 10833a0. ± Comparison against base commit aba8104. This pull request removes 45 and adds 8 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.
♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
e9f10fb
to
f184945
Compare
@@ -109,6 +109,9 @@ def __call__(self, flash=False, hard=False): | |||
|
|||
self._set_flash_mode(flash) | |||
|
|||
# Ensuring that first up target will change state before restart | |||
time.sleep(0.5) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
From what I understand it's only needed on zynq target, so why do we add it in the common code?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On other targets are no impact about that, because construction and way how they change states are different from zynq 7000. On other targets we can easily first up reboot and in this time change state. Zynq7000 need to have to change state as first because it prepares target for what is needed after reboot. I added this code there because it doesn't colidate with other targets and clarify situation with order in flashing state.
This is Reset cycle
of zynq7000-zedboard:
And there is reason why Reboot
is needed and what types of Signals
can be needed in this situation:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tested for a while 0.05s - I've run about 100 restarts and it seemed to work stable - to verify whether it's not possible to make it a bit shorter.
def _reboot_soft(self): | ||
self._reboot_hard() | ||
self.host.set_reset(0) | ||
time.sleep(0.5) | ||
self.dut.clear_buffer() | ||
self.host.set_reset(1) | ||
time.sleep(0.25) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's already defined in the same form in the parent class, so you can just remove it just like it's done there: https://github.com/phoenix-rtos/phoenix-rtos-tests/blob/8c6d062c2fbd327e2664ec371fcf8bddf1135483/trunner/target/armv7m7.py#L21C14-L21C14
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@damianloew look closely on line 32. Same history like before. It needs more time to bring down the target.
JIRA: CI-389
f184945
to
10833a0
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It seems to not work now:/
JIRA: CI-389
Description
Motivation and Context
Types of changes
How Has This Been Tested?
Checklist:
Special treatment