On Tuesday 28 April 2009 09:41:07 Wolfgang Denk wrote: > In message Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i too would prefer a POST case that can be classified as a mathematically > > sound proof. did i miss something, or was such a case proposed ? > > No. > > And I think it's actually difficult to implement, as it's highly > system-dependent. Testing against the RTC was mentioned - there is a > plethora of different RTC being usedon different boards, some more > and some less suitable for such a test. Some board don't even have a > RTC (quite alot of them actually), and other systems have an internal > RTC that runs from the same clock as the main CPU so you can measure > anything but you cannot measure wallclock times because you don't > have an independent reference clock. > > Yes, being able to test sucha thing is nice, but I want to make clear > that this is not a mandatory prerequisite to get any code accepted.
i proposed any RTC POST as a method of being able to somewhat validate things sanely, not as a complete or required solution. i know that RTCs are not a given in the embedded world, but they are common enough that you should hopefully have a board with one to validate *arch* changes and give you an idea that things should be working. pretty much all Blackfin boards from ADI have an RTC on it with a dedicated crystal, so it makes things easy for me. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
