Seems like a good UDS topic, I've added it to the blueprint: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-r-fwts-features
Brendan -- Will you be at UDS to talk through some of the issues you've seen during Cert runs? --chris On 10/05/2012 06:09 AM, Alex Hung wrote: > I agree with Colin's viewpoints. > > Profiles for different purposes (development cycle vs. certificate > cycle) seem to be a good way to solve this. > > Cheers, > Alex Hung > > On 10/05/2012 04:25 PM, Colin Ian King wrote: >> I've been thinking a lot about this a lot while I'm currently in bed >> fighting a bad case of shingles :-/ >> >> fwts was designed to catch firmware errors - from my perspective it was >> a way to automate the kind of work I did in HWE to catch any problem >> early in the enablement phase so we could get firmware fixed or detect >> issues that we could fix in the kernel before we shipped a product. The >> mind set to fwts is: "automatically spot potential errors and get them >> fixed early". Honestly, it looks *REALLY* poor if the kernel spews out >> lots of warning and error messages on hardware that we've enabled. >> >> This is a different use-case from what CERT requires. The firmware is >> not really fixable - the machine is already released and on the market >> and firmware upgrades are less likely. >> >> From the enablement viewpoint, I wrote fwts to be pedantic so we can >> spot specific issues (such as missing controls like _BQC) because the >> kernel has to bodge and work around this features (it kind of works, but >> is not ideal) and it is good to get these fixed in firmware if we can. >> This is obviously not the case in the certification phase. >> >> Some issues are marked "CRITICAL" such as _OSC as it most probably (or >> though possibly not) may lead to a poor configuration (e.g. poor power >> configuration) and it requires an engineer to look at. We don't want to >> fail energy star compliance tests do we? :-) >> >> So, I think once you understand that fwts was designed to catch >> potential poorly written firmware issues so that can be investigated and >> fixed you can see that design feature does not match the requirements of >> certification. I suspect we may need to add a profile setting to fwts >> so it can be used for different use-cases. >> >> Anyhow, that's just my view. Others may disagree. I'm very happy to >> discuss this and thrash out some kind of workable solution. >> >> Colin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
