I have a couple of doubts regarding the Resource Manager tests part of the IL conformance test suite (see section 4.6 in IL_Conformance_Test1_1.doc).
The Khronos Group Conformance Process document (http://www.khronos.org/files/conformance_procedures) states in Attachment B (OpenMAX IL) that the Interop conforming config should unconditionally pass the "interop profile" tests (in addtion to the "base profile" and "standard component" tests, if any standard role is claimed).
According to the previous statement, the resource manager tests (Resource Preemption and Wait For Resources) are mandatory for any "Interop profile" OpenMAX IL implementation. That, implicitly means that any Interop compliant OpenMAX IL component implementation "must" provide communication between the component and a Resource Manager AND that a Resource Manager "must" be present in the platform. Otherwise, those resource manager tests would never pass.
This, to me, raise a contradiction since the OpenMAX IL 1.1.1 spec does not clearly states that a Resource Manager MUST be available in the target platform for Interop implementations. According to section 126.96.36.199 Hardware Vendor-Specific Resource Manager,
"To implement the behavioral rules, a hardware vendor-specific resource manager may exist and perform the following functions:..."
However, in the Interop profile suite, the Clock Component Test and Seeking Component Test are optional tests and only apply to a clock component implementation or to a component claiming to implement seeking.
Therefore, my questions are:
Should Resource Management tests be made mandatory for Interop components that run in a platform that does not support resource management? Shouldn't these resource management tests be made optional instead and only necessary for Interop components that need to be run on platforms claiming Resource Management capabilities?
My understanding here is that the Resource Manager tests should be made optional in the Interop conformance suite and only needed if the underlying platform provides a Resource Manager that is able to implement the behavioural rules. Does it make any sense to mandate the implementation of a proprietary hardware/platform specific communication with a hypothetic Resource manager if the component is to be used on a platform without Resource Manager?