On 20 September 2012 08:47, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
On 20 Sep 2012, at 14:41, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
On 20 September 2012 04:17, Dave Pigott dave.pigott@linaro.org wrote:
I've registered a BP in advance of any agreement:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/lava-lab/+spec/hack-box-hardware-ticketing-...
Adding Amit as well.
Some requirements from my side,
- TC2 is remotely resetable.
Done.
- TC2 can be completely reflashed remotely (may need SD-Mux)
No need. I intend to just plug USB into the gateway server and mount it.
- Can connect to the serial port remotely
Done.
Cool. Would you also mind writting up some instructions at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/Android/ConnectToTC2?
Basically all the things that: http://www.synaccess-net.com/remote-power.php/2/37 thing allows you to do.
Dave Pigott Validation Engineer T: +44 1223 40 00 63 | M +44 7940 45 93 44 Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:39, Dave Pigott wrote:
On 19 Sep 2012, at 21:04, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
On 19 September 2012 07:11, Loïc Minier loic.minier@linaro.org wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012, Dave Pigott wrote:
Device Type Instances
vexpress-a5 vexpress-a5-01
vexpress-a9 vexpress-a9-01
vexpress-tc2 vexpress-tc2-01
vexpress-tc2-02 vexpress-tc2-03 vexpress-tc2-04Notes:
- vexpress-tc2-01 will remain offline for external user testing. I'm
thinking that perhaps we should switch this around and make that tc2-04 and then remove it from the list to make it tidier
Yes; note that one of the TC2 was actually meant to be reserved to TCWG,
with remote access, but we currently have nobody to set it up as they
desire (custom kernel with PM features turned off). If the TCWG frees
resources to pick this up, they'll grab one of these TC2 boards.
Sorry to vector off a bit, but we could probably get it set up for
them. We'd also like a TC2 box we could run code on.
We have a total of four at the moment. The idea was that there was one spare for remote access, but what I'm hearing now is that the way the TCWG want it set up is different from the way that, say, the Android team would want it set up. This means two sidelined TC2s, with two for LAVA. My concern is when another group or two wants remote access.
Let's try to think of a way of handling this properly. Let's gather the requirements and see if there is some sensible "ticketing" type system, with some auto-configuration, that would make sense. In terms of re-flashing a board, this would be easy to provide access to, by connecting the board to a USB port on the gateway server. It always mounts with a known volume name (which is configurable, of course), so there's no issue of having to udev it like we do the snowballs.
In a nutshell: I think we need to raise a BP for this work. Does everyone agree, or am I tilting at windmills?
Thanks
Dave
- I have one spare a9 tile and a mother board. Does anyone want me to put
this in a new motherboard and bring a second a9 online?
Makes sense; apparently the new motherboard are slightly different, is
it easy to tell them apart? We should make sure that people working on
advanced tiles (e.g. TC2 or later) get the very latest baseboard to
avoid any incompatibilities. IIUC all baseboards and daughterboards are
compatible, but best to avoid that risk.
--
Loïc Minier
--
Zach Pfeffer
Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams
Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro
http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog
-- Zach Pfeffer Android Platform Team Lead, Linaro Platform Teams Linaro.org | Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro http://twitter.com/#%21/linaroorg - http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog