Hey, On 19/06/17 08:46, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> I went through the RFC916 and ended up preparing a set of fixes and improvements for the RATP logic in barebox. >> Let me know what you think. > As far as I can say the patches look good. It's quite a while since I > last looked at the RATP code, so I can't really judge. To which extent > are the patches tested? Have you explicitly tested for the corner cases > you fix in each patch? You probably have tested against your new > library. Have you also tested against the python implementation? I did test against bbremote, and also did several fixes there as well. I haven't tested against the "ratp filesystem support" feature though, maybe I should do that as well. Regarding which corner cases are tested, well, some of them apply to code paths that I believe wouldn't really apply to barebox right now (e.g. barebox doing active open at the same time as bbremote doing active open), so that's hard to test. I could go one by one over each patch and try to provide logs before/after applying the patch, how about that? BTW; how would you debug barebox (e.g. get the debug messages generated) while testing the RATP link over the TTY? Right now I validated the barebox behavior just by looking at which RATP messages were returned to me. -- Aleksander https://aleksander.es _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
