On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> wrote:
I added in attachment the result of these scripts on a fully working
cpufreq framework on my intel box. That will show the ouput of the tests.

But the cpufreq is not complete on a pandaboard, so results won't be
really nice.

Looking at your results answered some of my questions at least, it seems to have a very different format for the output than the previous tests.  Are the older ones replaced by this, extended by it, or is this just a completely separate testsuite?  If it's to be considered a different testsuite, that makes some sense, as the type of tests here seem to be consistent pass/fail sorts of tests.  However I have a few concerns for having it be easily parsed into results that can be stored automatically:

for 'cpu0':
checking scaling_available_governors file presence ...                PASS
checking scaling_governor file presence ...                           PASS
for 'cpu1':
checking scaling_available_governors file presence ...                PASS
checking scaling_governor file presence ...                           PASS
 ...
Heading1
 test_id1
 test_id2
Heading2
 test_id1
 test_id2
This is notoriously a bit tricky to deal with.  It can be done, but the parsing has to track which heading it's under, and modify the test_id (or some attribute of it) to designate how it differs from other testcases with the exact same name.  It can be done, but since you have complete control over how you output results, it can easily be changed in such a way that is easy to parse, and easy for a human to look at.
What might be easier is:
cpu0_scaling_available_governors_file_exists: PASS
cpu0_scaling_governor_file_exists: PASS
cpu1_scaling_available_governors_file_exists: PASS
cpu1_scaling_governor_file_exists: PASS
...

Another thing that I'm curious about here is...
saving governor for cpu0 ...                                          DONE
Is that a result? Or just an informational message?  That's not clear, even as a human reader.

deviation 0 % for 2333000 is ...                                      VERY GOOD
Same comments as above about having an easier to interpret format, but the result here: "VERY GOOD" - what does that mean?  What are the other possible values?  Is this simply another way of saying "PASS"?  Or should it actually be a measurement reported here?

Thanks,
Paul Larson