Skip to content

Conversation

anthonychen1251
Copy link
Member

@anthonychen1251 anthonychen1251 commented Oct 16, 2025

The spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability test was introduced in #28385 and was passing its checks. However, a concurrent change in #28440 renamed the RESCUE_GPIO parameter to WITH_RESCUE_GPIO_PARAM.

This renaming was not propagated to the spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability owner config, causing CI to keep failing on spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability test and blocking the check.

This updates the parameter name to WITH_RESCUE_GPIO_PARAM in the configuration to resolve the CI failures.

The spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability test was introduced in
 lowRISC#28385 and was passing its checks. However, a concurrent change
in lowRISC#28440 renamed the RESCUE_GPIO parameter to WITH_RESCUE_GPIO_PARAM.

This renaming was not propagated to the test owner config for the
spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability, causing CI to keep failing on
spidfu_rescue_boot_svc_req_disability test and blocking the check.

This updates the parameter name to WITH_RESCUE_GPIO_PARAM in the
configuration to resolve the CI failures.

Signed-off-by: Anthony Chen <[email protected]>
@anthonychen1251 anthonychen1251 force-pushed the fix-spi-dfu-rescue-disability-test branch from 19b53da to ea84caa Compare October 17, 2025 08:39
@anthonychen1251
Copy link
Member Author

Rebased.

@cfrantz
Copy link
Contributor

cfrantz commented Oct 17, 2025

The two failing tests (rescue_firmware_slot_b_usbdfu_fpga_hyper310_rom_ext and usbdfu_out_chunk_too_big_fpga_hyper310_rom_ext) both pass locally.

It appears CI lost the USB device. Retrying CI.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants