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:
- What should I call the architecture? I have so far called it 'native'.
- What should I call the vendor (board/xxx)? 'test' or 'sandbox'?
- What should I call the board? Is that 'sandbox'?
as Graeme said, just call them all "sandbox"
OK, sandbox it is.
- When I create a driver, like the serial test driver, should that be
serial_test.c, test_serial.c, sandbox_serial or something else?
i think it depends on its function. if the serial driver actually goes to std{in,err,out}, then perhaps "serial/sandbox_stdio.c". let's not assume we'll only ever have one pseudo driver that we can use under the sandbox :).
OK well I suppose I can start with sandbox and we can see where it takes us.
Wolfgang Denk: I'm not sure what you mean by "a mocked remote host". We should be able to send and receive packets from a real network interface as well.
- 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.
Regards, Simon