Hi all,
Just a heads up that sometime later today I will be switching the vexpress device type and vexpress-a901 off, and we will be moving to:
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-tc2-04
Notes: * 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 * 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? * Until we have a boot solution for vexpress-a5 that will stay invisible
The upshot is, that any jobs you were submitting on a daily basis to device-type vexpress, will now have to be changed to vexpress-a9. Shout now if you want me to delay this switch over.
Thanks
Dave
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 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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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.
- 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.
On 19 Sep 2012, at 13:11, Loïc Minier 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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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.
If the TCWG want help this end in setting it up, get them to contact me with details.
- 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.
I haven't looked closely, but I know very clearly which is which. We only have two of the old ones, and they're in rack 1.
Dave
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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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.
- 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
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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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
I've registered a BP in advance of any agreement:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/lava-lab/+spec/hack-box-hardware-ticketing-...
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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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
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,
1. TC2 is remotely resetable. 2. TC2 can be completely reflashed remotely (may need SD-Mux) 3. Can connect to the serial port remotely
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
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.
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
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
On 09/20/2012 09:04 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
Cool. Would you also mind writting up some instructions at:
Already done here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/LAVA/DevOps/TC2TilesOnLavaServer
On 20 September 2012 09:13, Andy Doan andy.doan@linaro.org wrote:
On 09/20/2012 09:04 AM, Zach Pfeffer wrote:
Cool. Would you also mind writting up some instructions at:
Already done here:
https://wiki.linaro.org/Platform/LAVA/DevOps/TC2TilesOnLavaServer
Oh cool. :)
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012, Dave Pigott wrote:
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.
The initial plan when discussing how to best allocate TC2 boards was that we'd have (amongst others) two boards for platform work, but we ended up being short of boards, so we prioritized boards to people working on big.LITTLE kernel code or testing it and on TCWG for A15 work on KVM or A15 optimizations / errata work. I believe the latter use is still very important, but lacks engineers to support it. There were also 2 boards meant for LAVA.
Platform work kind of requires having boards physically with the people working on this or that platform.
Maybe we want to revise the LAVA allocation to allow some platform work on TC2; 4 TC2 is a bit much for LAVA alone given how scarce these are.
Except for the ones in LAVA, the allocation spreadsheet is in: https://docs.google.com/a/linaro.org/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AoZqvK7R1biJdGxmRU...
So in short, I don't think the ticketing system will help Android, but it might be relevant for e.g. shared hackbox usage between TCWG and PMWG for instance.
Glad to see vexpress-a9 had ci jobs running through it.
Dave
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 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-tc2-04
Notes:
- 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.
- 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
On 12-09-19 04:04 PM, 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-tc2-04
Notes: * 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
This seems tidier to me as well.
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 need to be careful here. The board loan agreement and ARM are very specific about having a box available for general porting. These boxes are for Linaro use only, to support Linaro work. They are not for general member use. ARM sells these to members, and doesn't want sales circumvented in this manner. It was one of the main sticking points in the board loan agreement negotiation AFAIK; ARM was insistent.
I'm not suggesting this is what anyone has planned to do, but please do keep it in mind when evaluating requests to run jobs or work on the board.
- 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?
Seems reasonable if we have the hardware and you have the time.
Scott
On 09/19/2012 05:24 AM, Dave Pigott wrote: <snip>
The upshot is, that any jobs you were submitting on a daily basis to device-type vexpress, will now have to be changed to vexpress-a9. Shout now if you want me to delay this switch over. ilman/listinfo/linaro-validation>
I see Fathi updated vexpress for ubuntu daily pre-built images. Thanks!
linaro-validation@lists.linaro.org
-
Andy Doan -
Dave Pigott -
Loïc Minier -
Scott Bambrough -
Zach Pfeffer