On Wed 05 Sep 2012 10:01:00 AM EDT, Dave Pigott wrote:
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
Yes, we want three different device types. I don't want one situation
with the Panda, and a different one with Versatile Express. That would
just give me a headache trying to remember how to address a particular
board.
On an entirely different subject, I'm thinking tags may be useful for
optional HW modules. The new Origens have daughter cards for some
functionality, and we could use tags to distinguish between boards with
different daughtercards and boards with no daughtercards. What do you
think?
Scott
--
Scott Bambrough
Technical Director, Member Services
Linaro Ltd.
_______________________________________________
linaro-validation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation
