tests: remove not existing platforms from platform allow or integration_platform

[gopiotr]

Describe the bug
I worked on checking of platform existence in this PR: #41081 and in the result I discovered, that among Zephyr tests and samples, there are some not existing platforms in platform_allow and integration_platforms lists.

I tried to collect all those cases and assign to them person from CODEOWNERS file or from commits history.

People who are mention in following list: please consider if following not existing platforms should be removed from platform_allow or integration_platforms list or should be replaced by other platform. If some of you feel, that you are not responsible for some of those test please let me know about it - I apologize in advance.

platform_allow

• tests/subsys/storage/stream/stream_flash | storage.stream_flash.mpu_allow_flash_write | nrf52840_pca10056 | @hakonfam
• tests/drivers/build_all/ieee802154 | ieee802154.build.cc12xx_cc2520 | cc1352_sensortag | @JordanYates
• tests/kernel/workq/critical | kernel.workqueue.nsim | nsim_em_mpu_stack_guard | @nashif @dcpleung @andyross
• tests/posix/common | portability.posix.common.nsim portability.posix.common.newlib.nsim | nsim_em_mpu_stack_guard | @nashif
• samples/subsys/ipc/openamp | sample.ipc.openamp | v2m_musca | @galak
• samples/userspace/syscall_perf | sample.syscall_performances | riscv32 | @dcpleung @nashif
• samples/drivers/counter/maxim_ds3231 | sample.basic.maxim_ds3231 | nrf51_pca10028 | @pabigot
• samples/boards/arc_secure_services | sample.board.arc_secure_services | em_starterkit_em7d_secure | @ioannisg
• samples/tfm_integration/tfm_secure_partition | sample.tfm.secure_partition sample.tfm.secure_partition.ipc | nrf9160dk_nrf9160ns v2m_musca_s1_nonsecure nrf5340dk_nrf5340_cpuappns mps2_an521_nonsecure | @microbuilder @SebastianBoe

integration_platforms

• tests/subsys/jwt | libraries.encoding.jwt | frdm_k64 | @ceolin
• tests/drivers/flash | drivers.flash.stm32 | nucleo_f103rc | @str4t0m
• samples/subsys/ipc/rpmsg_service | sample.ipc.rpmsg_service.nrf | nrf5340dk_nrf5340_cpuapp bl5340_dvk_cpuapp | @lairdjm - please convert this into list of dashes
• samples/subsys/ipc/ipc_service/static_vrings_mi | sample.ipc.static_vrings_mi.nrf | nrf5340dk_nrf5340_cpuapp bl5340_dvk_cpuapp | @carlocaione - please convert this into list of dashes

Expected behavior
All not existing platforms should be removed or replaced by other platform.

Environment

• OS: Linux
• Toolchain Zephyr SDK
• Commit SHA used: 92fbd7d

[pfalcon]

tests/posix/common | portability.posix.common.nsim portability.posix.common.newlib.nsim | nsim_em_mpu_stack_guard | @dcpleung @pfalcon

I'd say that in this case (and perhaps others) you should ping maintainers of a platform in question, not the code piece where it's mentioned (well, maybe @dcpleung is a maintainer of "nsim" stuff, but I know nothing about it).

Doing a quick git log grep, adhoc nsim test configs above were introduced in 7387b56 . AFAIK, Andrew Boie no longer works on the project, so probably makes no sense to ping him. But from the above, seems like NSIM is an Intel thing, so you may want to ping Intel folks about it (e.g. @nashif if nobody else).

[oyvindronningstad]

For TFM you can ping @SebastianBoe instead of me.

[gopiotr]

I'd say that in this case (and perhaps others) you should ping maintainers of a platform in question, not the code piece where it's mentioned (well, maybe @dcpleung is a maintainer of "nsim" stuff, but I know nothing about it).

Doing a quick git log grep, adhoc nsim test configs above were introduced in 7387b56 . AFAIK, Andrew Boie no longer works on the project, so probably makes no sense to ping him. But from the above, seems like NSIM is an Intel thing, so you may want to ping Intel folks about it (e.g. @nashif if nobody else).

@pfalcon Thank you for your comment. Yes you are right, in this case I will contact with @nashif, who merged Andrew Boie commit with nsim_em_mpu_stack_guard platform. Sorry to inconvenience you.

[SebastianBoe]

@gopiotr : For the tfm related boards.

The board names should be changed from nonsecure and ns to _ns.

[nashif]

this is one way to do that, ping everyone in the project about fixing what counts as a typo or misnamed platforms, OR you can take a stab at it and do the changes and fixes to get the right platforms in, the latter, will be faster and more efficient, you can then add people for review to make sure you have the right name.

[gopiotr]

@nashif thank you for this PR: #41238
BTW do you know what platform should be used there: samples/userspace/syscall_perf - sample.syscall_performances instead of riscv32? I tried to use qemu_riscv32 board, but there is an error during build this sample on this board.

[nashif]

@nashif thank you for this PR: #41238
BTW do you know what platform should be used there: samples/userspace/syscall_perf - sample.syscall_performances instead of riscv32? I tried to use qemu_riscv32 board, but there is an error during build this sample on this board.

no, this sample seems to be broken, we need to file a separate bug. @amergnat can you please fix this?