you mention mosys will get you the value also, why not use mosys always ?

Zako is a Chromebox that really doesn't have a Chrome EC (it uses a Super I/O chip instead). ectool will never work on this platform.

I agree we shouldn't include 'ectool' in images for such platforms. I will look into it today.

dchan@ - We only use ectool for devices where it is available, eg. buddy. If ectool is not available then we use mosys. See link above (original comment) for logic used in the test.


shawnn@ - ectool was not included on these platforms till R55-8852.0.0

harpreet@harpreet:~$ ssh root@chromeos1-row3-rack5-host6
localhost ~ # which ectool
which: no ectool in (/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/opt/bin)
localhost ~ # 
localhost ~ # 
localhost ~ # cat /etc/lsb-release 
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_APPID={C3EA54EB-348D-5118-8598-CFD6317AD268}
CHROMEOS_BOARD_APPID={C3EA54EB-348D-5118-8598-CFD6317AD268}
CHROMEOS_CANARY_APPID={90F229CE-83E2-4FAF-8479-E368A34938B1}
DEVICETYPE=CHROMEBOX
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_BUILDER_PATH=zako-release/R55-8852.0.0
GOOGLE_RELEASE=8852.0.0
CHROMEOS_DEVSERVER=
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_BOARD=zako
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_BUILD_NUMBER=8852
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_BRANCH_NUMBER=0
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_CHROME_MILESTONE=55
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_PATCH_NUMBER=0
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_TRACK=testimage-channel
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_DESCRIPTION=8852.0.0 (Official Build) dev-channel zako test
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_BUILD_TYPE=Official Build
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_NAME=Chrome OS
CHROMEOS_RELEASE_VERSION=8852.0.0
CHROMEOS_AUSERVER=https://tools.google.com/service/update2

This was apparently done intentionally:

https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/390880/

Certain tests check for the existence of ectool and assume it works if the binary exists, eg. enterprise_CFM_Perf.

There is a FAFT config attribute 'chrome_ec' that we set in board-level config files to indicate whether the device has a Chrome EC. Does it make sense to check the same config attribute for tests like enterprise_CFM_Perf, even though they are not FAFT tests?

I'll change it to use 'ectool version' instead of 'which ectool'.

On devices that don't have chrome ec the output of 'ectool version' is as below:

localhost ~ # which ectool
/usr/local/sbin/ectool
localhost ~ # ectool version
Port 0x204,0x200 are both 0xFF.
Very likely this board doesn't have a Chromium EC.
Cannot find I2C adapter
Unable to establish host communication
Couldn't find EC



Platforms that have chrome ec the version is returned as such:

localhost ~ # which ectool
/usr/sbin/ectool
localhost ~ # ectool version
RO version:    buddy_v1.1.2342-798806a
RW version:    buddy_v1.1.2342-798806a
Firmware copy: RW
Build info:    buddy_v1.1.2342-798806a 2016-01-08 16:00:40 @build169-m2

Assigning it to myself and submitting the above listed fix for the test.

The following revision refers to this bug:
  https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/third_party/autotest/+/79980a0b5711c4687e2c44f6d081955170998aa9

commit 79980a0b5711c4687e2c44f6d081955170998aa9
Author: harpreet <harpreet@google.com>
Date: Tue Oct 11 17:55:50 2016

Use 'ectool version' to detect if chrome ec is available

ec-utils is now included on test images for all platforms even if chrome
ec is not available. Using 'ectool version' instead of 'which ectool'
still works for the purpose of this test.

BUG= chromium:654619 
TEST=Tested on a local dut setup.

Change-Id: I04cf27eb71f28999b6a17290ce605d041cd001df
Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/396484
Commit-Ready: Harpreet Grewal <harpreet@chromium.org>
Tested-by: Harpreet Grewal <harpreet@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: danny chan <dchan@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Shawn N <shawnn@chromium.org>

[modify] https://crrev.com/79980a0b5711c4687e2c44f6d081955170998aa9/server/site_tests/enterprise_CFM_Perf/enterprise_CFM_Perf.py