On 30/11/16 15:30, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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'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.
So are we talking about a fork of greybus to do the IoT type stuff
Pantelis and Alexandre mentioned @ ELCE ?
Greybus-UniPro
Greybus-IoT (minus UniPro, SVC, TimeSync and with a modified control
and firmware protocol)
We still need to know if the Motorola stuff will ever be merged with the
stuff in upstream/staging and if so when/how....
---
bod
_______________________________________________
greybus-dev mailing list
greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|