Hi Simon,
On 27/08/11 10:25, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Mike,
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Mike Frysinger vapier@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thursday, August 25, 2011 23:32:38 Simon Glass wrote:
[snip]
- I mean that the tftp command will 'obtain' a file when it asks for
one, although the actual Ethernet layer is mocked and doesn't actually go out on the wire. Imagine an Ethernet driver which has a half-baked tftp server in it. Yes I also see value in actually using machine interfaces since the testing can be more thorough.
why not just build on top of tun/tap ? then we do get "real" network traffic, and you dont have to write your own tftp server because you can simply use the same exact one on your development machine that the board would connect to. -mike
Because then you need to set up a real tftp server. It's fine to do what you suggest, but if possible it would be nice to have self-contained tests also, so long as it isn't too much work.
I don't consider having to set up a tftp server as a bad thing - Quite the opposite really. There is plenty of network code in U-Boot that will benefit from testing under the sandbox target because it is much easier to debug. And there will be minimal impact on U-Boot code (just a sandbox 'Ethernet' driver is all that will be needed)
I am reminded of when the R&D department that developed to eNET board were doing the firmware development before the first prototypes were available - The created a HAL which used pcap from memory. I wasn't part of that team, so I really don't know the details...
Regards,
Graeme