Hardware validation ==> was RE: [cgl_discussion] OSDL

Lynch, Rusty rusty.lynch at intel.com
Fri Jul 19 11:15:59 PDT 2002


About the hardware validation question:

No, we do not have a hardware validation suite.  Although I do think
something like what you are talking about is a useful thing to have.  I
think when we (at least the validation subteam) talk about this kind of a
concept, we usually refer to it as validating a solution.  For example, a
solution for a softswitch might consist of some kind of a softswitch
application running on top of a cPCI chassis with redundant CPU boards, a
bunch of IO boards, and a Linux distribution meeting all of the OSDL Carrier
Grade Linux Requirements v1.0.

The kind of things where hardware would come into play might be:
* The cPCI chipset might not be very well known, and therefore the solution
provider has to provide a new driver to the distribution, but the driver
doesn't support hotswap in exactly the same way CGL is expecting.  As a
result the hotswap test fail.
* The watchdog timer hardware has some really weird restrictions on it (ok,
this is not that great of an example) so that the normal /dev/watchdog type
of interface doesn't behave as expected.  As a result the watchdog
validation suite fails.

Personally, I think there is a lot of value in being able to say that a
given solution is compliant to XXXXX or certified as YYYYY, and for everyone
to know exactly what that means.  This of course is my opinion.

	-rusty

-----Original Message-----
From: Isabelle, Francois [mailto:Francois.Isabelle at ca.kontron.com]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:36 AM
To: 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] OSDL


Got some update from Monta Vista representative:

"OSDL and TLT are indeed two separate efforts but they also share some of 
the same overlapping companies and individuals which are contributing to 
both."

"All three companies (MontaVista/Intel/IBM) currently working in TLT are
members of the OSDL and 
are contributing to the development of the OSDL specification."

"Our current position is that the TLT and OSDL will come together into one 
(OSDL) specification sometime 2003."

It remains clear that 
	"There is no relationship between TLT working group and OSDL Carrier
 Grade Linux Working Group." even thought expected features are very
similar.

As another party that wishes to support OSDL initiative and deployement of
CGL, I'll try to follow and/or contribute to development of both branches.

Question:
	There is a Validation Framework: according to the site,
	"This provides the overall structure for creating and executing
validation suites that will test different 	specs of a compliant carrier
grade Linux OS. "

	Is there any "Hardware Validation Framework" in place. That could
provide something like:
	"This provides the overall structure for creating and executing
validation suites and that will test different 	specs of a compliant carrier
grade Linux compatible ' CPU board / Hardware Platform / Peripheral Device.
'"

	Such a Validation Framework may include :
  	 Feature set requirements Verification, Functionnal
Validation,Performance Verification,Stress Test ...
	
	I don't necessarily want to get down to the connectors pinout or
electrical signals jitter, rise time or else.. 	But, for example, if a
hardware watchdog is needed ( I think the requirement is for a software
watchdog at this time but ...) to meet compliance, a board should have that
kind of watchdog.

	This would allow software vendors to self verify their chances of
having a "CGL Ready Platform/Board/Whatever".	
	Do you think that kind of framework might be usefull ?
	

	Any feedback would be appreciated
	
Francois Isabelle

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil Bliss [mailto:nbliss at mvista.com]
Sent: 18 juillet, 2002 16:36
To: Khalid Aziz
Cc: Neil Bliss; Isabelle, Francois; 'cgl_discussion at osdl.org'
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] OSDL


Khalid,

Ok, my mistake.  I had a faulty unserstanding of the work was progressing.
Thanks for setting me straight.

later,

Neil

Once upon a time, Khalid Aziz, then known as khalid, said...
> Neil,
> 
> There is no relationship between TLT working group and OSDL Carrier
> Grade Linux Working Group. All of the OSDL CGL work is happening in OSDL
> CGL subgroups. If Montavista has some other work going on in some sort
> of working group, it is unrelated. There is a lot of activity going on
> in OSDL subgroups.
> 
> --
> Khalid
> Proof-of-Concept Subgroup Chair
> 
> Neil Bliss wrote:
> > 
> > Francois,
> > 
> > At this point, much of the work on CGL is happening in the TLT working
group.
> > I'd expect to see a lot more activity in OSDL around the end of the
year.
> > 
> > talk to you soon,
> > 
> > Neil
> 
> ====================================================================
> Khalid Aziz                                   Linux Systems Division
> (970)898-9214                                        Hewlett-Packard
> khalid at fc.hp.com                                    Fort Collins, CO

-- 
Neil Bliss - MontaVista Technical Support
Yow!-Zippy-says: ..  my NOSE is NUMB!
_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list