On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:17:49PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > 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. That's not an accurate description. We wanted to get this upstream and into 4.9 which was declared to be the next LTS kernel. But I agree that dropping UniPro support from Greybus would be rather silly, especially given that there are now phones shipping that use a version of it. Johan _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|