KVSTORE: disable small RAM ST targets

[jeromecoutant]

Description

Seems that KVSTORE should be disabled for small RAM targets.

Pull request type

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

[0xc0170]

I recall there was PR addressing these small targets but can't find it. @davidsaada Please review

[ciarmcom]

@jeromecoutant, thank you for your changes.
@ARMmbed/mbed-os-storage @ARMmbed/mbed-os-maintainers please review.

[davidsaada]

I recall there was PR addressing these small targets but can't find it. @davidsaada Please review

Well, there isn't one, but I guess you can treat #9244 as such: It enables almost all KVStore tests on K64F only, whaile the remaining test (static test) will not run on any target that has no storage component enabled. So - current PR, however harmless, is not really required (assuming we approve #9244.

[jeromecoutant]

I don't understand this #9244 ... This should have a "do not merge" label as it is valid only for 1 target ?
So I think it will be faster to accept this one.

[davidsaada]

I don't understand this #9244 ... This should have a "do not merge" label as it is valid only for 1 target ?
So I think it will be faster to accept this one.

I don't have a problem accepting this PR, just noted it would become redundant once #9244 is accepted. One thing that can be misleading - the changes you made on the config file only affect tests, not the enablement of the whole feature.

[davidsaada]

Well, there isn't one, but I guess you can treat #9244 as such: It enables almost all KVStore tests on K64F only, whaile the remaining test (static test) will not run on any target that has no storage component enabled. So - current PR, however harmless, is not really required (assuming we approve #9244.

[0xc0170]

If we go with 9244 (most probably will go in), we do not need this one, do we @jeromecoutant ?

[jeromecoutant]

Why KVSTORE tests be executable only with K64F ???

[cmonr]

@davidsaada I just had a thought.

If this test is only testing the functionality of the software layer sans hardware, why not turn it into a unit test?

[davidsaada]

@cmonr This should probably be discussed in #9244, but regardless - KVStore relies on many other features: drivers, file systems, block devices, mbedtls and many more. It would better to have its tests triggered (even on a single device) following any change in these features.

[jeromecoutant]

Issue will be fixed by #9244