Hello, On Tuesday 29 Nov 2016 17:40:43 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 29/11/16 15:36, Alex Elder wrote: > > What do you think? > > I agree with everything you said about SVC, control, TimeSync and to and > as it currently is - firmware too. > > I also agree we need a well defined long term target to shoot for. > Implied in the target of becoming a self-describing IoT bus is that its > no longer a UniPro centric bus. > > I think the main question/concern (mostly question) I have is - are we > going to try to maintain any type of UniPro support and if so > > - To what level > - On what hardware > > Also I wonder what take Motorola has (if any) on the whole zapping > UniPro thing. It would be nice to somehow support UniPro but, given we > have no hardware to test it out on - it's not clear how productive or > realistic that would really be - perhaps a complete waste of time. > > So my question/statement is, is UniPro officially dead in Greybus-V2 ? I'm also concerned about dropping UniPro support as it would just cut the branch that the Moto-Z is sitting on. We've rushed merging greybus upstream in order to avoid the forked version making it to mainline first. Moving in a direction that would prevent Motorola from ever using the mainline kernel wouldn't be nice. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|