Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW #10700

LMESTM · 2019-05-29T09:17:25Z

Description

Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW

those changes are generic and should not create any regression to other targets, but are required for oncoming changes on STM targets (#10701)

In particular and as kindly suggested by Przemec S. :

Add setup/teardown handler’s for all cases. This disables sys-tick, so there should be no unexpected lp ticker interrupt scheduling.
Modify setup/teardown handler’s: remove suspension of lp/us tickers, so they can count as this is required by test_lock_unlock_test_check test case.
Use TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check()) after setting interrupt to cope with STM specific handling (CMPOK interrupt with deep-sleep locked). This performs wait only if needed and will not affect other targets which do not need extra wait.
Move sleep_manager_lock_deep_sleep() after TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check())
Use TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check()) in
test_lock_unlock_test_check to let lower layers manage deep sleep.

Pull request type

[ ] Fix
[ ] Refactor
[ ] Target update
[ ] Functionality change
[ ] Docs update
[ x] Test update
[ ] Breaking change

Reviewers

@jeromecoutant @mprse

Release Notes

ciarmcom · 2019-05-29T11:00:46Z

@LMESTM, thank you for your changes.
@mprse @ARMmbed/mbed-os-test @ARMmbed/mbed-os-hal @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

LMESTM · 2019-06-04T08:20:45Z

Updated to keep the code in test setup that make sure that tickers are initialized.

mprse

LGTM

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp

In particular and as kindly suggested by Przemec S. : 1. Add setup/teardown handler’s for all cases. This disables sys-tick, so there should be no unexpected lp ticker interrupt scheduling. 2. Modify setup/teardown handler’s: remove suspension of lp/us tickers, so they can count as this is required by test_lock_unlock_test_check test case. 3. Use TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check()) after setting interrupt to cope with STM specific handling (CMPOK interrupt with deep-sleep locked). This performs wait only if needed and will not affect other targets which do not need extra wait. 4. Move sleep_manager_lock_deep_sleep() after TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check()) 5. Use TEST_ASSERT_TRUE(sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check()) in test_lock_unlock_test_check to let lower layers manage deep sleep.

LMESTM · 2019-06-07T14:58:40Z

@mprse I've updated the PR - could be great if you can help getting more reviews or starting CI

LMESTM · 2019-06-11T15:44:39Z

@0xc0170 who else needs to review ?

and avoid associated warning ...

0xc0170 · 2019-06-14T10:00:02Z

I'll review shortly

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp

mprse · 2019-06-18T10:49:49Z

Hi @LMESTM @fkjagodzinski !

After the @fkjagodzinski review, I suggest modifying the test as follows: mprse@90880ff
mprse@90880ff . This will also require to change the sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check() function (mprse@e5a91a0), so it does not use ticker common layer. I think that since this function is generally designed for testing using the common ticker is not a good idea. I suggest using simple wait_ns() while waiting on unlocking deep-sleep.

BTW I added a loop in sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check() test to be sure it always works. It can be removed in the final version I think. I tested this solution on K64F, NUCLEO_F429ZI, NUCLEO_L073RZ, NUCLEO_F070RB.

LMESTM · 2019-06-18T11:25:12Z

@mprse
I also made and tested few changes to this PR to cope with feeedback from @fkjagodzinski
You can check the updated version.

Otherwise, how would you suggest to proceed : do you want to make a new PR to replace this one, or shall I cherry-pick your suggested commit if @fkjagodzinski agrees this is a better way forward ?

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp

mprse · 2019-06-18T12:42:10Z

@mprse
I also made and tested few changes to this PR to cope with feeedback from @fkjagodzinski
You can check the updated version.

Otherwise, how would you suggest to proceed : do you want to make a new PR to replace this one, or shall I cherry-pick your suggested commit if @fkjagodzinski agrees this is a better way forward ?

I think we should continue this one. If you agree with proposed changes and they are also accepted by @fkjagodzinski feel free to cherry-pick or use provided commits to further changes.

LMESTM · 2019-06-18T16:02:18Z

@fkjagodzinski could you please provide feedback on @mprse changes before I consider including them into this PR ?

@mprse I'll rely on you explaining the changes even if I take them in this PR :-)

Changes: - restore the original form of setup/teardown handlers, - test_lock_unlock_test_check(): do not use common ticker layer (Timer, Timeout). Use only ticker HAL layer. - Increase DEEP_SLEEP_TEST_CHECK_WAIT_DELTA_US delta.

…ayer to count elapsed time.

With the DEEP_SLEEP_TEST_CHECK_WAIT_DELTA_US increased, we now have TEST_ASSERT_UINT64_WITHIN(delta=1000, expected=1000, actual=1000) so this assertion needed to be updated. What we need is the deep sleep to be enabled after the programed interrupt has fired and before a 2ms timeout expiration, which means >= 1000 and < 2000.

LMESTM · 2019-06-19T13:34:32Z

Just fixed a minor astyle issue

LMESTM · 2019-06-20T07:06:14Z

@adbridge I think I've done the requested changes. I guess that Label needs work could be removed.

adbridge · 2019-06-21T11:20:47Z

CI started

mbed-ci · 2019-06-24T02:54:34Z

Test run: FAILED

Summary: 2 of 11 test jobs failed
Build number : 1
Build artifacts

Failed test jobs:

jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_greentea-test
jenkins-ci/mbed-os-ci_cloud-client-test

LMESTM · 2019-06-24T07:34:01Z

@fkjagodzinski @mprse Could you have a look at the CI failure root cause ?

fkjagodzinski · 2019-06-24T15:07:48Z

@LMESTM the ticker_event_handler_stub() which is an interrupt handler used in test_lock_unlock_test_check() test case did not clear the interrupt. This caused the NRF51_DK & NRF52_DK to handle same interrupt again and again, and in consequence, starve the main thread.

~~You can cherry-pick my fix from: fkjagodzinski@318f195.~~

LMESTM · 2019-06-24T15:31:36Z

@fkjagodzinski Cherry-pick fails ... it seems you haven't taken my latest commit.
Could you rebase it ? Or do you mean that I need to replace my latest commits by mine ?

fkjagodzinski · 2019-06-24T16:16:09Z

Cherry-pick fails ... it seems you haven't taken my latest commit.

Sorry about that; indeed, I used an outdated branch from your repo. Here is the new commit that should work fine: fkjagodzinski@a1436c5.

BTW, I've just noticed that NRF51_DK fires a bit early sometimes (976 us instead of >= 1000 us), so this assertion TEST_ASSERT(diff_us(start, stop, p_ticker_info) >= DEEP_SLEEP_TEST_CHECK_WAIT_US / 2); also has to be changed (included in my patch).

Add missing `lp_ticker_clear_interrupt()` in the interrput handler used in `test_lock_unlock_test_check()` test. Remove redefined `us_to_ticks()`.

LMESTM · 2019-06-24T16:25:00Z

Branch updated with your fix.
I'll start tests here.
EDIT:
Test results: Tested OK on 1 STM32 per family, as listed below:
['NUCLEO_F091RC', 'NUCLEO_F103RB', 'NUCLEO_F207ZG', 'NUCLEO_F303ZE', 'NUCLEO_F446RE', 'NUCLEO_F767ZI', 'NUCLEO_H743ZI', 'NUCLEO_L073RZ', 'NUCLEO_L152RE', 'NUCLEO_L476RG', 'NUCLEO_WB55RG']

LMESTM · 2019-06-27T08:03:31Z

@0xc0170 @adbridge - the issue found in CI should have been solved with fix from @fkjagodzinski now part of this PR - could you restart CI to check it's ok ?

adbridge · 2019-06-27T10:35:13Z

CI started

mbed-ci · 2019-06-27T12:09:19Z

Test run: SUCCESS

Summary: 11 of 11 test jobs passed
Build number : 2
Build artifacts

LMESTM mentioned this pull request May 29, 2019

STM: replace C++ low power ticker wrapper with a low level wrapper #10701

Merged

ciarmcom requested review from mprse and a team May 29, 2019 11:00

ciarmcom added the needs: review label May 29, 2019

mprse mentioned this pull request Jun 4, 2019

Changes required by the ST low power ticker wrapper. #10536

Merged

LMESTM force-pushed the hal_sleep_manager_test_update branch from ede1577 to acfb6f8 Compare June 4, 2019 08:18

mprse approved these changes Jun 5, 2019

View reviewed changes

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

LMESTM force-pushed the hal_sleep_manager_test_update branch from acfb6f8 to d4db0f3 Compare June 7, 2019 14:38

Fix compilation issue for targets without LPTICKER or USTICKER

24203fc

Remove unused variable

83e274a

and avoid associated warning ...

0xc0170 removed the request for review from a team June 14, 2019 09:59

fkjagodzinski suggested changes Jun 17, 2019

View reviewed changes

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

LMESTM force-pushed the hal_sleep_manager_test_update branch from 83e274a to db57cd0 Compare June 18, 2019 11:27

mprse reviewed Jun 18, 2019

View reviewed changes

TESTS/mbed_hal/sleep_manager/main.cpp Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

adbridge added needs: work and removed needs: review labels Jun 18, 2019

mprse added 2 commits June 18, 2019 18:06

Further modifications in Sleep Manager test.

d577e7f

Changes: - restore the original form of setup/teardown handlers, - test_lock_unlock_test_check(): do not use common ticker layer (Timer, Timeout). Use only ticker HAL layer. - Increase DEEP_SLEEP_TEST_CHECK_WAIT_DELTA_US delta.

sleep_manager_can_deep_sleep_test_check(): do not use ticker common l…

c4cb3de

…ayer to count elapsed time.

LMESTM force-pushed the hal_sleep_manager_test_update branch from 45a0fef to 8476be6 Compare June 19, 2019 13:33

adbridge approved these changes Jun 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

adbridge added needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Jun 20, 2019

bulislaw approved these changes Jun 20, 2019

View reviewed changes

adbridge added the release-version: 5.13.1 label Jun 21, 2019

0xc0170 added needs: work and removed needs: CI labels Jun 24, 2019

Tests: SleepManager: Fix test_check for NRF5X

8d8383b

Add missing `lp_ticker_clear_interrupt()` in the interrput handler used in `test_lock_unlock_test_check()` test. Remove redefined `us_to_ticks()`.

LMESTM mentioned this pull request Jun 26, 2019

Fix cpu stats use when ticker suspended #10828

Closed

adbridge added priority: high needs: CI and removed needs: work labels Jun 27, 2019

0xc0170 added ready for merge and removed needs: CI labels Jun 28, 2019

0xc0170 merged commit a2c9152 into ARMmbed:master Jun 28, 2019

0xc0170 removed the ready for merge label Jul 2, 2019

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW #10700

Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW #10700

LMESTM commented May 29, 2019 •

edited

Loading

ciarmcom commented May 29, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 4, 2019

mprse left a comment

LMESTM commented Jun 7, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 11, 2019

0xc0170 commented Jun 14, 2019

mprse commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 18, 2019

mprse commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 19, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 20, 2019

adbridge commented Jun 21, 2019

mbed-ci commented Jun 24, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019

fkjagodzinski commented Jun 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019

fkjagodzinski commented Jun 24, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

LMESTM commented Jun 27, 2019

adbridge commented Jun 27, 2019

mbed-ci commented Jun 27, 2019

Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW #10700

Update HAL Sleep manager test to cope with STM32 LPTIM HW #10700

Conversation

LMESTM commented May 29, 2019 • edited Loading

Description

Pull request type

Reviewers

Release Notes

ciarmcom commented May 29, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 4, 2019

mprse left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

LMESTM commented Jun 7, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 11, 2019

0xc0170 commented Jun 14, 2019

mprse commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 18, 2019

mprse commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 18, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 19, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 20, 2019

adbridge commented Jun 21, 2019

mbed-ci commented Jun 24, 2019

Test run: FAILED

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019

fkjagodzinski commented Jun 24, 2019 • edited Loading

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019

fkjagodzinski commented Jun 24, 2019

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019 • edited Loading

LMESTM commented Jun 27, 2019

adbridge commented Jun 27, 2019

mbed-ci commented Jun 27, 2019

Test run: SUCCESS

LMESTM commented May 29, 2019 •

edited

Loading

fkjagodzinski commented Jun 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading

LMESTM commented Jun 24, 2019 •

edited

Loading