On 30/11/16 08:53, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > 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. > + Jim Any comment on the above Jim from Motorola's perspective ? --- bod _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|