VERIFICATION OF COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN MODULES

Abstract: A module for a modular system includes requirement indicators defining features of a component required for the module to operate, capability indicators defining features provided by the module and ability indicators defining features of the component acceptable to the module. The combination of the requirements, compatibility and ability indicators provides a very flexible structure for indicating and testing requirements and capabilities in that it permits the designation of requirements, capabilities and the capability to accept inverted capabilities. A variable number of the requirement, capability and ability indicators can be provided to accommodate future requirements. Verification logic is operable to determine compatibility when defined relationships between the requirement, capability and ability indicators for the module and an interconnected component are met. One of the module and the component can be a system component such as a mother board.

Description: VERIFICATION OF COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN MODULES BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION This invention relates to computer systems comprising pluggable modules and to such pluggable modules Computer systems typically include a number of pluggable modules, that is modules or components which may be plugged into a system to provide specific functionality The use of pluggable modules is convenient in order to provide for a versatile configuration and for long term repair requirements Particularly, but not exclusively, in reliable systems, it is important to be able to establish that the modules plugged in acmally are compatible By this is meant that a module which may be inserted in a modular system needs to tested before it is fully integrated into the system and before the system relies on that module The testing is typically done after the module is physically inserted into the system, but before the module is fully integrated functionally The module could be a hardware or a software module Over the years, the capabilities of a module mav change as different versions are released For example, initially a disk module may be made of two 1 Gbyte drives Later, it may be made with one 2Gbyte drive This change may be of no consequence in some systems, but may be important in others When mixing modules of different manufacture dates in the field, mtormation on some capabilities may be needed even if those capabilities were not even thought of when a module was built An aim of the present invention is to address the problem of providing information on and resolving such compatibility issues between interactmg modules SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION Particular and preferred aspects of the invention are set out in the accompanymg mdependent and dependent claims Combinations of features from the dependent claims may be combined with features of the mdependent claims as appropnate and not merely as explicitly set out in the claims In accordance with one aspect of the mvention, there is provided a module for a modular system The module comprises requirement indicators defining features of a component required for the module to operate It also comprises capability indicators defining features provided by the module It further comprises ability indicators defining features of the component acceptable to the module An ability indicator effectively defines the ability to accept inverted capabilities It should be noted that the capabilities mentioned above could be referred to as first capabilities, with the abilities being referred to as second capabilities It should be understood that these alternative designations would be equivalent The combination of the requirement, capability and ability indicators provides a very flexible structure for indicating and testing requirements, capabilities and abilities in that it permits the designation of requirements, capabilities and the ability to accept inverted capabilities This effectively permits logical relationships between individual requirements and capabilities to be expressed and examined In a modular system the interconnecting modules each comprises an appropriate set of indicators and compatibility verification logic is provided for evaluating relationships between the requirement, capability and ability indicators Preferably, the number of number of the requirement, capability and ability indicators can be varied from module to module This is of value where a new requirement is developed after a first version of a module is shipped In later modules, therefore, another set of requirement, capability and ability indicators may be piovided without impacting the operation of the computabihty keying system A length indicator may be provided which is representative of the number of at least one of the lequirement indicators, capability indicators and ability indicators In one embodiment, the module may include a requirement specification comprising a requirement specification length indicator and a number of requirement indicators, the requirement specification length indicator bemg representative of the number of requirement indicators Similarly, a capability specification may be provided comprising a capability specification length indicator and a number of capability indicators, the capability specification length indicator being representative of the number of capability indicators Also, an ability specification may be provided comprising an ability specification length indicator and a number of ability indicators, the ability specification length indicator bemg representative of the number of ability indicators Storage may be provided in the module for each of the requirement strucmre, the capability structure and the ability strucmre Each of the requirement, capability and ability indicators may be formed by a bit order to minimize the storage needed A module type indicator may also be provided, whereby the meaning of respective indicators may vary from module type to module type as indicated by the module type indicator The module may be component module connectable to a component of a system, for example a module pluggable into the component The component may be a system component module Alternatively, the module could be a system component such as a motherboard for receiving pluggable modules Further the module could be interfaced with a component which is not itself modular that is a component which could not be removed from a system and replaced, perhaps because it forms a fundamental s stem fiamework The module may comprise compatibility verification logic for verifying compatibility between itself and a system component In this case, the module can be operable to evaluate the following relationships and to determine compatibility where all of the following relationships are satisfied MR AND SC = MR; MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR; and SA AND MC = MC, where AND is a logical AND operator, MR and SR form the requirement indicators for the module and system component, respectively, MC and SC form the capability indicators for the module and for the system component, respectively, and MA and SA form the ability indicators for the module and the system component. respectively However, the verification logic may be provided in the component into which the module is plugged, or indeed in a separate agent, for example a processor which does not form part of the module or the component Where a variable number of requirement indicators are provided, any unspecified requirements are assumed absent. Similarly, where a variable number of capability indicators are provided, any unspecified capabilities are taken to be absent Where a variable number of ability indicators are provided, any unspecified abilities are normally taken to be present However, any unspecified abilities could selectively be assumed piesent or absent depending on application requirements In accordance with another aspect of the invention, there is provided a computer system including a system component comprising system requirement indicators defining feamres of a module required by the system component, system capability indicators definmg feamres provided by the system component and system ability indicators definmg feamres of the module acceptable to the system component, a module comprising module requirement indicators defining feamres of a system component required by the module, module capabilitv indicators defining feamres provided by the module and module ability indicators defining features of the svstem component acceptable to the module, and compatibility evaluation logic for evaluating the following relationships and for determining compatibility where all of the following relationships are satisfied MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC. SR AND MC = SR. and SA AND C = MC In accordance w ith a further aspect of the mvention. there is provided a method of testing compatibility between a module and a component w herein each module comprises requirement indicators defining feamres of a component requned for the module to operate, capability indicators defining feamres provided by the module and ability indicators defining feamres of the component acceptable to the module, wherein the method comprises e\ aluatmg the follow me relationships MR AND SC - MR MA AND SC = SC SR AND MC = SR and SA AND MC = MC and determining compatibility w here the relationships are satisfied BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS Exemplary embodiments of the present mvention will be described hereinafter, by way of example only, with reference to the accompanying drawings m which like reference signs relate to like elements and in which Figure 1 is a diagram of a prior art mechanical keymg arrangement, Figure 2 is a schematic block diagram of vaπous modules interconnected to one another, Figure 3 is a schematic representation of a register of Figure 3, Figure 4 is a schematic representation of the interaction between control logic and registers for the modules of Figure 2, Figure 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of the control logic of Figure 3, and Figure 6 is a schematic overview of a fault tolerant computer system DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS Figure 1 is a schematic representation of a mechanical keying arrangement which could demonstrate compatibility between a card 10 and a motherboard 12 The card 10 is provided with a notch 14 at a piedetermmed position which is intended to indicate that it requires a 5V supply The motherboard 12 can be piovided with a prong 16 at an equivalent position indicating that it supplies a 5V supply The matching of the piong and the notch when the card is inserted ensures compatibility between the card and the motherboard If the prong were at a different place on the motherboard (e g , indicating that the motherboard provides a 10V supply, then the prong would not find an equivalent notch and therefore the card could not be inserted However, if no piong were provided on the motherboard, the card could be inserted, but it may or may not receive the supply it needs It will be appreciated that although the physical arrangement shown in Figure 1 does provide some information on compatibility, it is v ery limited in the amount of information it can supply, and does not provide piovision for future requirements which may arise after manufacture of the card and/or motherboard An embodiment of the present invention seeks to provide a more flexible approach to the determination of compatibility requnements Before describing an embodiment of the invention in detail, there follows a description of problems w Inch embodiments of the invention seek to address and a general description of the manner in which various embodiments of the invention solve these problems It should be understood that an embodiment of the invention need not solve all of the problems discussed Embodiments with varying optional feamres can solve different combinations of the problems discussed At a general level, consider the situation where a plugged module has a given set of requirements and capabilities For example, "I need a -12V power supply" is a requirement, and "I can work with a 32-bit bus" is a capability The system into which it is plugged has a similar list, like "I provide a -12V powei supply" and "I need a module that can work with a 32-bit bus" It must be determined, at the time when a module is plugged in. that the requirements of each mating part are supported by the capabilities of the other mated part It may happen that a plugged module supports many capabilities that are not required by the system A module could have the capability, "I can work with a 64-bit bus" If the system doesn't have the requirement, "I need a module that can work with a 64-bit bus," it doesn't matter If however there is a choice such as "I can work with a 64-bit bus" and "I can work with a 32-bit bus" then it may be desirable to make a decision as to some optimal use of the jointly supported features An embodiment of the present invention addresses this matter A module providing a set of data associated with a plugged module specifies both the module's requirements and its capabilities A system into which the module is plugged also provides a set of data which specifies its own capabilities and requirements A mechanism is provided to ensure compatibility by checking that each requirement of each part is supported by the equivalent capability of the other part In one embodiment, two lists are associated with each module one a list of capabilities and one a list of requirements A software mechanism can look in turn at each requirement of a module, traversing its requirement list, and confirm that the equivalent capability is present somewhere in the capability list of the other module This provides a versatile approach which can. however, make significant storage demands on the module and the system In another embodiment, compatibility checking is achieved using predefined bit positions in a data strucmre Each module has a capability data strucmre and a requirement data strucmre Each bit in the lequirement data strucmre is assigned a meaning, like "I require a 5V supply" To specify that a particular lequirement is true, set that bit in the requirements data strucmre for that module The same bit in the capability strucmre has the equivalent meaning, like "I can accept a 5V supply" A mechanism can be provided to check for compatibility by performing the logical AND between the requirements of a module and the capabilities of the mated part, and they must equal the requirements This arrangement has its limits Consider capability fields regardmg different versions of a feamre A "I have feamre Al", "I have feamre A2" and "I have feamre A3" It is assumed that any one module will have at most one of these bits set Now consider a system which requires feamre Al or feamre A2, but not feamre A3 The system cannot set both the Al and A2 requirement bits, as they will never both be satisfied There is no way of specifying an OR of capabilities A further embodiment of the mvention overcomes this problem If the capability "I have feamre A3" is πansfoπned into the requirement "I require a system that can accept a module with feamre A3" There is an equivalent requirement for every capability, so there is no need to add an extra requirement field The capability field can be interpreted as this secondary requirement field However, there is a need to add an extra capability field to the mating part In this case, this extra capability field would specify "I am able to accept a module with feamre A3" Often, this extra "capability to accept inverted capabilities" would be true, so you would expect all the bits in the ability field to be 111 " In the case for the A feamres mentioned above, the "I am able to accept a module with feamre Al", "I am able to accept a module with feamre A2" bits would be set to "1" and the "I am able to accept a module with feamre "A3" would be set to "0" Consider now that the manufacturer wishes to begin building modules with a feamre "A4", a capability not envisaged when the module and the software which checks compatibility was designed No bit corresponding to feamre "A4" exists in the data stored in existing modules or in the requirements or capabilities of existing systems To cope with this, the data fields are made extensible, consisting of an initial length datum followed by a bit field specified in the length New modules with feamre "A4" can be made with an extra bit in the data field, with an implied meaning for the capability field, "I have feamre A4" This corresponds to the requirements field, "I lequire a module with feamre A4" and the ability field, "I am able to accept a module with a feamre A4" This arrangement is provided for by the way that the fields are extended if no data bits are provided, because the field length is less than expected The capability field of a module is implicitly extended with zeroes, because an old module is not gomg to have a new capability The requirements field of the system is implicitly extended with zeroes, because an old system does not care about some new capability The ability field of a system is implicitly extended with ones, because the old system is capable of accepting new capabilities of new modules In this example, an old system which didn't care about "A" feamres provided would set the old "A" requirement bits to 0, and would implicitly have an A4 requirement bit of 0 so would not have any limit on the lequirement The secondary requirements "A" field of the old system would be 1, and the implicit secondary A4 lequirement bit would be 1 , so the checks would all pass and a module with the feamre A4 could be inserted without change into an old system that didn't care about feamre "A" An old system that specifically required modules with feamre A2 would not accept the module vvith ieatuie A4. because the old system would set the "I require a module with feamre A2" bit, and the "I have feamre A2" bit would not be set in the module with feamre A4 An old system that was able to accept modules with feamres A2 or A4 but not with feamre A3 would, using this arrangement, automatically accept the A4 module, because of the implicit setting of the new A4 ability bit This might not be what the customer wants The data system might imply "I can accept a module with any version of feamre A as long as it isn't A3", or it might imply "I can only accept modules with feamres Al or A2" It is probably not possible to determine which of these is meant until this has been agreed with a customer However, note that it is generally desirable to manufacture upward-compatible modules, so it is likely that the designer will choose not to build modules with feamre A4 if customers are not going to like them Following this general discussion, there now follows a description of an embodiment of the invention w ith reference to Figures 2-4 Figure 2 is a schematic representation of components of a computer system In particular Figure 2 schematically illustrates a motherboard 30 supporting a processor 32 and memory 34 connected via a bus 36, as well as other components (not shown) typically provided for such a system Λ pluggable module 40 is. however, shown In the present instance the pluggable module is a card carrying functional circuit elements However, it could alternatively be any form of pluggable module, such as an LO card, a random access or any other memory or circuit element, for example a RAM module or a serial number EEPROM or a processor Indeed, the module could be a software module for integration with other software modules or with hardware In each case a module and a cooperating component (which could be hardware or software) w ill each be provided with a strucmre defining lequirement, capability and ability indicators for the module In the presently illustrated example, the pluggable module is pluggable into a socket 38 connected to the bus 36 The pluggable element includes a plurality of registers 42 44 46 and 48 for capability type module lequnements. primary module capabilities and secondary module capabilities respectively (I e capabilities and abilities) The processor also maintains in memory registers 52 54, 56 and 58 for a capability type, system requirements, system capabilities and system abilities, respectively Each of the registers is used to provide respective data fields comprising a length damm 20 and a number of bits 22 which is specified by the length of damm An example of such a register is shown in Figure 3 The purpose of the registers is described in more detail below The processor also maintains in memory control code forming compatibility verification logic 60 for establishing compatibility between the system and the module The compatibility verification logic need not be controlled by the processor, but could be effected by special purpose hardware or by a programmable circuit such as an ASIC The compatibility verification logic could also be separately supplied on a data carrier such as a disk or tape or could be supplied via a telecommunications medium such a wire or optical cable or by wireless or satellite or indeed any other carrier medium as appropriate Indeed, the verification logic could be provided by a separate agent as long as that agent is able to detect the requirements, capabilities and abilities and to logically analyze the interrelationships between them Figure 4 is a schematic representation of the interaction between the verification control logic and the v arious registers Although reference is made to "registers", they need not be separate registers, but could be defined in random access memory As shown in Figure 4 modules (and the components into which they are to be plugged) each provide thiee data fields Each of these fields is implemented as a length damm followed by the specified number of bits For a module MP is a field defining feamres of a system component required for the module to operate; MC is a field defining feamres provided by the module, and MA is a field defining teatures of the system component acceptable to the module For a system SR is a field defining feamres of the module required for the system component to accept it SC is a field defining features prov ided bv the system component, and S λ is a field definmg feamres of the module acceptable to the system component All fields m anv computation are extended before use to match the longest field a\ aιlable as between the module and the system R and C fields are extended with zeroes Λ fields are extend w ith ones A bit in any field is set if the associated statement about the feamre is true A module is defined as being compatible if (using the syntax of the programming language "C") ((MR & SC) == MR) * System provides all requirements of module*/ <£.& ((MA & SC) == SC) '*No capability of system incompatible w ith module* ' && ((SR & MC1) == SR) *Module provides all requirements of system */ &.κ ((SA &. MCI) == MCI) '*No capability of module incompatible with system* The statement associated w ith a given bit in a field need not be the same for every product For example, bit 0 of the SR and SA and MC fields for a power supply could relate to input voltage compatibility SR[0] 1 means "The system requires a PSU capable of accepting 240V input" MC[0] 1 means "This PSU can accept 240V input" SA[0] 1 means "The system can work with PSUs capable of accepting 240V input" Clearly, this feamre is useless for say, a disk module, w here we might be moie interested in storage capacity and where an AC voltage is irrelevant To implement this vaiiabihty in meaning, a "feamre type" code can optionally be provided as part of the compatibility data The feamre type is a number which describes how the capability and lequirement data is interpreted Feamre types must match precisely for the product to be compatible There is no point in plugging a disk module into a power supply slot So. in addition to the MR, MC and MA fields, m accordance with one embodiment of the invention a module also supplies an MT damm. the capability type, which must match the ST type damm for the system It should be noted that this type code is not necessarily related to the function of the module, just the way the capability and requirement data is interpreted For modules of radically different function which can plug into a single slot one approach is to refer, say, to a disk interface or a communications interface, either of which could plug into a PCI slot Either they could share a common type, which would specify the way the capability bits are interpreted, and numerous capability bits would go unused In this case the disk interface could set to 0 the capability "I have 4 comms lines" Alternatively, they could have different types and the system would understand how to compute the compatibility of either type, using different SR, SC and SA fields for each type As an example of the versatility and extensibility of this scheme, consider a power supply which has MT 14 - this has capabilities interpreted for a PSU, MC[0] 1 - 1 can supply 400W The system could set for this same interface ST 14 - This requires capabilities interpreted for a PSU SR[0] 1 - The system requires a supply of 400W SA[0] 1 - The system can accept supplies capable of 400W Then, at a later date, higher output supplies are shipped, which have MT 14 - This has capabilities interpreted for a PSU MC[0] 1 - 1 can supply 400W and also the new capability MC[23] 1 - 1 can supply 600W This supply would be correctly seen to be compatible with the old system Figure 5 is a flow diagram illustrating the operation of the verification logic 60 of Figure 2 In step SI, the module is inserted in the system In step S2, a comparison is made by the system between the system and module requirements and capabilities Thus, if on a comparison of the registers it is determined that the system provides all the requirements of module, and no capability of the system is incompatible with module, and the module provides all the requirement of the system, and no capability of the module is incompatible with the system, then the module and the system are compatible This is achieved by establishing, for each bit position in the respective registers that MR AND SC equals MR, and MA AND SC equals SC, and SR AND MC equals SR, and SA AND MC equals MC, where "AND" is a logical "AND" operation If the logical comparisons of requirement, capabilities and abilities is true, then the system accepts the module as being compatible in step S3 If the logical comparison of requirements and capabilities is false, then the module is rejected in step S4 The l ejection could take the form of blocking all access to the module concerned, if this is appropriate, or alternative indicating incompatibility, for example by setting an audible or visual warning, or posting a flag in memory to be accessed by a user on or pπor to operating the system concerned Although in the above descπption it is assumed that the verification logic is held in the memory 34 of the computing system and is executed by the processor 32, and a module could be provided with suitable logic to perform the necessary verification As described above the verification could be performed by a separate, third- party agent, or entity There has been described an example of module keying in accordance with an embodiment of the invention Although this example has been descπbed in the context of pluggable modules for a computer system, the invention finds application to any modular system or apparams with complex interrelationships between lequirements, capabilities and abilities, particularly where those requirements, capabilities and abilities may change with time as new versions of the respective modules may be developed with new requirements capabilities and/or abilities The invention finds particular application to fault tolerant computer systems where it is highly desirable to ensure high availability of the system In such a case it is particularly important to ensure that any msertable oi pluggable devices in that system can be verified as bemg fully compatible with the system before they are fully integrated mto the system Figure 6 is a schematic overview of a fault tolerant computer system in which an embodiment of the invention may be implemented Figure 6 is a schematic overview of a fault tolerant computmg system 110 comprising a plurality of CPUsets (processing sets) 114 and 116 and a bridge 112 As shown in Figure 6, there are two processing sets 114 and 1 16, although in other embodiments there may be three or more processmg sets The bridge 112 forms an interface between the processing sets and I/O devices such as devices 127, 128, 129, 130, 131 and 132 In this document, the term processing set is used to denote a group of one or more processors, possibly including memory, which output and receive common outputs and inputs It should be noted that the alternative term mentioned above, "CPUset", could be used instead The first processing set 114 is connected to the bridge 112 via a first processing set I/O bus (PA bus) 124, in the present instance a PCI bus The second processing set 116 is connected to the bridge 112 via a second piocessmg set I/O bus (PB bus) 126 of the same type as the PA bus 124 (I e here a PCI bus) The I O devices are connected to the bridge 112 via a device I/O bus (D bus) 122, in the present instance also a PCI bus Although, in the particular example described, the buses 122, 124 and 126 are all PCI buses, this is merely by way of example, and in other embodiments other bus protocols may be used and the D-bus 122 may have a different protocol from that of the PA bus and the and PB bus (P buses) 124 and 126 The processing sets 1 14 and 1 16 and the bridge 1 12 are operable in synchronism under the control of a common clock 120, which is connected thereto by clock signal lines 21 Some of the devices 128, 129, including an Ethernet (E-NET) interface 128 and a small computei systems interconnect (SCSI) interface 129 are permanently connected to the device bus 122 but other I/O devices such as I O devices 130, 131 and 132 can be hot msertable into indiv idual switched slots 133 134 and 135 Dynamic field effect transistor (FET) switching can be provided for the slots 133, 134 and 135 to enable hot insertability and geographic addressing of the devices such as devices 130, 131 and 132 It will be appreciated that the number of I/O devices which may be connected to the D bus 122, and the number of slots provided for them, can be adjusted according to a particular implementation in accordance with specific design requirements The compatibility keying of the present invention could be used for establishing compatibility between the various modular components shown in Figure 6, or indeed between individual modules which together from the components shown in Figure 6 The modules and components to which the compatibility keying is applied can be hardware or software modules and components A software module could be for integration with other software modules or with hardware In each case a module and a cooperating component (which could be hardware or software) will each be piovided with a strucmre defining requirement, capability and ability indicators for the module and component In the case of a software module, this could be pro\ ided on a data carrier such as a disk or tape or could be supplied via a telecommunications medium such a w ire oi optical cable or by wireless or satellite or indeed any other carrier medium as appropriate The carrier medium could also be a semiconductor or other memory device It will be appreciated that although particular embodiments of the im ention have been descnbed, many modifications/additions and/or substitutions may be made within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined in the appended claims

Claims: WHAT IS CLAIMED IS 1 A module for a modular system, the module comprising - requirement indicators defining feamres of a component required for the module to operate. - capability indicators definmg feamres provided by the module, and - ability indicators defining feamres of the component acceptable to the module 2 The module of claim 1 havmg a first number of requirement, capability and ability mdicators, the module being connectable to a component having a different number of requirement, capability and ability indicators 3 The module of claim 1 , comprising a length indicator which is representative of the number of at least one of the requirement indicators, capability indicators and ability indicators 4 The module of claim 1 , comprising - a requirement strucmre comprising a variable length requnement indicator field and a requirement length field for indicating a number of requnement indicators in the requirement indicator field, - a capability structure comprising a v ariable length capability field and a capability length field for indicating a number ot capability indicators in the capability indicator field, and - an ability strucmre comprising a variable length ability field and an ability length field for indicating a number of ability indicators in the ability indicator field 5 The module of claim 4 wherein - the requirement structure comprises requirement storage - the capability strucmre comprises capabilitv storage and - the ability structure comprises ability storage 6 The module of claim 1 , wherein - each requirement indicator comprises a requirement bit, - each capability indicator comprises a capability bit, and - each ability indicator comprises an ability bit The module of claim 1. further comprising a module type indicator 8 The module of claim 1. wherein the component is a further module 9 The module of claim 1 , wherein the module is pluggable into the further component 10 The module of claim 1 wherein the component is a component of a modular system 1 1 The module of claim 1. wherein the module is a motherboard for receiving pluggable modular components 12 The module of claim 1 , comprising compatibility verification logic for verifying compatibility between itself and a cooperating component 13 The module of claim 12, wherein the module is operable to evaluate the following relationships and to determine compatibility where all of the following relationships are satisfied MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC; SR AND MC = SR; and SA AND MC = MC, where AND is a logical AND operator, MR and SR form the requirement indicators for the module and component, respectively, MC and SC form the capability indicators for the module and component, respectively. and MA and SA form the ability indicators for the module and component, respectively 14 The module of claim 13. comprising- - a requirement strucmre comprising a vaπable length requirement indicator field and a requirement length field for indicating a number of requirement indicators in the requirement indicator field, - a capability strucmre comprising a vaπable length capability field and a capability length field for indicating a number of capability indicators in the capability indicator field, and - an ability strucmre comprising a variable length ability field and an ability length field for indicating a number of ability indicators in the ability indicator field 1 The module of claim 14, wherein all equivalent requirement, capability and ability indicators in the vaπable length fields are compared according to the following relationships' MR AND SC = MR; MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR; and SA AND MC = MC 16 The module of claim 15, wherein any unspecified requirements are taken as absent 17 The module of claim 15, wherein any unspecified capabilities are taken as absent 18 The module of claim 15. wherein any unspecified abilities are taken as present 19 The module of claim 14. wheiein any unspecified abilities are selectively taken as present or absent 20 A module for a modular system, the module compπsmg - requirement means defining feamres required for the module to operate, - capability means defining feamres provided by the module, and - ability means defining feamres acceptable to the module 21 A computer system including a first system component and a second system component, wherein each component includes - requirement indicators definmg feamres requirement by the component, - capability indicators definmg feamres provided by the component, and - ability mdicators defining feamres acceptable to the component 22 A computer system according to claim 21, further comprising compatibility evaluation logic for evaluatmg the relationships between the requirement indicators, the capability indicators and the ability indicators of the components to test for compatibility between the components 23 A computer system compπsmg a system component compπsmg system requirement mdicators definmg feamres of a module required by the system component, system capability indicators defining feamres provided by the system component and svstem ability indicators defining features of the module acceptable to the system component, a module comprising module requirement indicators definmg feamres of a system component required by the module, module capability indicators definmg feamres provided by the module and module ability indicators defining feamres of the system component acceptable to the module, and compatibility evaluation logic for evaluating the following relationships and for determining compatibility where all of the following relationships are satisfied MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR, and SA AND MCI = MC, where AND is a logical AND operator, MR and SR form the requirement indicators for the module and system component, respectively, MC and SC form the capability indicators for the module and for system component, respectively, and MA and SA form the ability indicators for the module and system component, respectively 24 A method of testing computability between at least two system components, wherein each component includes requirement indicators defining feamres requirement by the component, capability indicators defining feamres provided the component and ability indicators definmg feamres acceptable to the component, the method compπsmg logically evaluatmg relationships between the requirement indicators, the capability indicators and the ability indicators of the components to test for compatibility between the components, and determining compatibility when a predetermined logical relationship is established 25 The method of claim 24, wherein the following relationships are evaluated MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR, and SA AND MCI = MC, where AND is a logical AND operator, SR and MR are the requirement indicators for first and second components, respectively, SC and MC are the capability indicators for the first and second components, respectively, and SA and MA are the ability indicators for the first and second components respectively 26 The method of claim 25, wherein compatibility is determined where the relationships are satisfied 27 A method of testing compatibility between a system component and a module of a modular system, wherein each module comprises requirement indicators defining feamres of a component required for the module to operate, capability indicators defining feamres provided by the module and ability indicators defining featmes of the component acceptable to the module, wherein the method comprises evaluating the following relationships MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR, and SA AND MCI = MC, wheie AND is a logical AND operator MR and SR form the requirement indicators for the module and the component, respectively, MC and SC form the capability indicators for the module and component respectivel}, and MA and SA form the ability indicators for the module and component respectively, and determining compatibility where the relationships are satisfied 28 The method of claim 27. wherein MR and SR each comprise a requirement strucmre for the module and component, respectively, each requirement strucmre comprising a vaπable length requirement indicator field and a requirement length field for indicating a number of requirement indicators m the requirement indicator field, MC and SC each compπse a capability strucmre for the module and component, respectively, each capability strucmre compπsmg a variable length capability field and a capability length field for indicating a number of capability indicators in the capability indicator field, MS and SA each comprise an ability strucmre for the module and component, respectively, each ability strucmre compπsmg a variable length ability field and an ability length field for indicating a number of ability indicators in the ability indicator field, and all equivalent requirement, capability and ability indicators in the variable length fields are compared according to the following relationships MR AND SC = MR, MA AND SC = SC, SR AND MC = SR, and SA AND MC = MC The method of claim 28 wherein any unspecified requirements are taken as absent The method of claim 28 wherein any unspecified capabilities are taken as absent The method of claim 28, wherein any unspecified abilities are taken as present The method of claim 28 wherein any unspecified abilities are selectively taken as present or absent

Inventors: MAYHEAD MARTIN P, WILLIAMS EMRYS J, MAYHEAD, MARTIN, P., WILLIAMS, EMRYS, J.
Applicants: SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC, SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.
Application year: 1999
Main classification: G06F11
IPC codes: G06F3, G06F11, G11C29