On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Dave Pigott <dave.pigott@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2012, at 19:38, Ricardo Salveti wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Dave Pigott <dave.pigott@linaro.org> 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.