Re: [PATCH v7 2/2] hw/acpi: Implement the SRAT GI affinity structure

[Ankit Agrawal]

>> >> Jonathan, Alex, do you know how we may add tests that is dependent
>> >> on the vfio-pci device?
>> >
>> > There are none.
>> >
>> > This would require a host device always available for passthrough and
>> > there is no simple solution for this problem. Such tests would need to
>> > run in a nested environment under avocado: a pc/virt machine with an
>> > igb device and use the PF and/or VFs to check device assignment in a
>> > nested guests.
>> >
>> > PPC just introduced new tests to check nested guest support on two
>> > different HV implementations. If you have time, please take a look
>> > at tests/avocado/ppc_hv_tests.py for the framework.
>> >
>> > I will try to propose a new test when I am done with the reviews,
>> > not before 9.0 soft freeze though.
>>
>> Thanks for the information. As part of this patch, I'll leave out
>> this test change then.
>
> For BIOS table purposes it can be any PCI device. I've been testing
> this with a virtio-net-pci but something like virtio-rng-pci will
> do fine.  The table contents doesn't care if it's vfio or not.

Thanks, I was able to work this out with the virtio-rng-pci device.

> I can spin a test as part of the follow up Generic Port series that
> incorporates both and pushes the limits of the hmat code in general.
> Current tests are too tame ;)

Sure, that is fine by me.
FYI, this is how the test change looked like in case you were wondering.

diff --git a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
index fe6a9a8563..8ac8e3f048 100644
--- a/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
+++ b/tests/qtest/bios-tables-test.c
@@ -2157,6 +2157,29 @@ static void test_acpi_virt_oem_fields(void)
     g_free(args);
 }

+static void test_acpi_virt_srat_gi(void)
+{
+    test_data data = {
+        .machine = "virt",
+        .tcg_only = true,
+        .uefi_fl1 = "pc-bios/edk2-aarch64-code.fd",
+        .uefi_fl2 = "pc-bios/edk2-arm-vars.fd",
+        .cd = "tests/data/uefi-boot-images/bios-tables-test.aarch64.iso.qcow2",
+        .ram_start = 0x40000000ULL,
+        .scan_len = 128ULL * 1024 * 1024,
+    };
+
+    data.variant = ".gi";
+    test_acpi_one(" -cpu cortex-a57"
+                  " -object memory-backend-ram,id=ram0,size=128M"
+                  " -numa node,memdev=ram0,nodeid=0"
+                  " -numa node,nodeid=1"
+                  " -device virtio-rng-pci,id=dev0"
+                  " -object acpi-generic-initiator,id=gi0,pci-dev=dev0,node=1",
+                  &data);
+
+    free_test_data(&data);
+}

 int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 {
@@ -2312,6 +2335,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
             if (qtest_has_device("virtio-iommu-pci")) {
                 qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/viot", test_acpi_virt_viot);
             }
+            qtest_add_func("acpi/virt/gi", test_acpi_virt_srat_gi);
         }
     }
     ret = g_test_run();
--
2.34.1

> Given I don't think we have clarification from ACPI spec side on
> the many to one mapping you are using, I'd just use a 1-1 in any
> test.

Ack.