On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Ricardo Salveti <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Dave Pigott <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On 23 Feb 2012, at 19:38, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Dave Pigott <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> As far as I understand it, the test definition specifies the device > tags > >>> that it requires, and the scheduler pushes the job to an appropriately > >>> tagged board. That said, I haven't tried it myself. We now have several > >>> boards with audio-loopback and usb-flash-drive tags enabled, more will > be > >>> added as they come offline. > >> > >> Great, need to give the usb test a try! > >> > >> Should we also add tags like wifi and bluetooth for the boards we > >> have? I know these features are locked per board type, but it might > >> also make sense to add the specific capabilities as tags as well. > >> > > > > I bought this up at Connect, but the general feeling was that you > wouldn't target a test at a board type that didn't support that > functionality. > > But then we would not cover the test case where someone would just > like to run a bluetooth test, without actually depending on a board > type. Without the tags, it'd be hard to know if the test case should > run on an imx53 board or not. > > As it'd be easy to add and maintain such tags, I don't see why we > shouldn't allow that. > > I like the idea of explicitely tagging our board types with a default set of hardware features available... why wouldn't we do that? -- Alexander Sack Technical Director, Linaro Platform Teams http://www.linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
_______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
