On 17 Jul 2012, at 21:15, Ryan Harkin wrote: > Hi Dave, > > 5) A5 and board naming. > > I was talking to Scott about all this earlier today. He is keen that we get > this TC2 board up and running, but he's also keen that we replace one of the > A9 core tiles with the A5 tile - now that the A9 has stabilised. This is a > commitment we made to ARM a long time ago and I've been putting it off while > we had 1 x A9 playing up on us. > > Scott and I discussed naming conventions and we were thinking that the > numbering would be best on a per board type rather than overall vexpresses. > Eg, we would have 3 boards: > > vexpress-a501 > vexpress-a901 > vexpress-tc201
Hi Ryan, Now that I am close to having the A5 booting in the lab, we need to discuss this issue, as we did with the panda. Basically, with the panda, Scott and I originally settled on them having a common device type, with a device_tag of either 4430 or 4460, and then naming the device instances as pandaXX and panda-esXX. However, this was later changed so that we have two distinct devices, panda and panda-es, since people will want to test on a specific platform, and know that they are, rather than the situation as it would have been, in that if you didn't specify a device tag, the job would run on any panda - 4430 or 4460. It was felt that this was less than desirable. So what I'm suggesting is, that we create three device types, viz: vexpress-a5 vexpress-a9 vexpress-tc2 And then it's clear when you submit a job it's clear which device type you will run on, rather than, as in the panda case above, submitting to vexpress and not knowing which type is being targeted. N.B. I am aware of the need/desire to be able to submit one job to lava and then have it run across all device variants, but that is orthogonal to this argument since, if we do implement such a feature, a device set would probably be defined, i.e. rather than saying "one each of vexpress variants" you would specify "vexpress-a5, vexpress-a9, vexpress-tc2", or indeed "panda, panda-es". Just to be clear, is that what you were suggesting as well? Brickbats and suggestions? Thanks Dave _______________________________________________ linaro-validation mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
