firmware-testing-team team mailing list archive

[Chris Van Hoof <vanhoof@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Seems like a good UDS topic, I've added it to the blueprint:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/hardware-r-fwts-features

Brendan -- Will you be at UDS to talk through some of the issues you've
seen during Cert runs?

--chris

On 10/05/2012 06:09 AM, Alex Hung wrote:
> I agree with Colin's viewpoints.
> 
> Profiles for different purposes (development cycle vs. certificate
> cycle) seem to be a good way to solve this.
> 
> Cheers,
> Alex Hung
> 
> On 10/05/2012 04:25 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>> I've been thinking a lot about this a lot while I'm currently in bed
>> fighting a bad case of shingles :-/
>>
>> fwts was designed to catch firmware errors - from my perspective it was
>> a way to automate the kind of work I did in HWE to catch any problem
>> early in the enablement phase so we could get firmware fixed or detect
>> issues that we could fix in the kernel before we shipped a product. The
>> mind set to fwts is: "automatically spot potential errors and get them
>> fixed early".   Honestly, it looks *REALLY* poor if the kernel spews out
>> lots of warning and error messages on hardware that we've enabled.
>>
>> This is a different use-case from what CERT requires.  The firmware is
>> not really fixable - the machine is already released and on the market
>> and firmware upgrades are less likely.
>>
>>  From the enablement viewpoint, I wrote fwts to be pedantic so we can
>> spot specific issues (such as missing controls like _BQC) because the
>> kernel has to bodge and work around this features (it kind of works, but
>> is not ideal) and it is good to get these fixed in firmware if we can.
>> This is obviously not the case in the certification phase.
>>
>> Some issues are marked "CRITICAL" such as _OSC as it most probably (or
>> though possibly not) may lead to a poor configuration (e.g. poor power
>> configuration) and it requires an engineer to look at.  We don't want to
>> fail energy star compliance tests do we? :-)
>>
>> So, I think once you understand that fwts was designed to catch
>> potential poorly written firmware issues so that can be investigated and
>> fixed you can see that design feature does not match the requirements of
>> certification.   I suspect we may need to add a profile setting to fwts
>> so it can be used for different use-cases.
>>
>> Anyhow, that's just my view.  Others may disagree. I'm very happy to
>> discuss this and thrash out some kind of workable solution.
>>
>> Colin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
>> Post to     : firmware-testing-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
> Post to     : firmware-testing-team@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~firmware-testing-team
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>