Hi Bryan, On Wednesday 30 Nov 2016 16:17:38 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > 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: > >>> 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 ? No, not a fork, a modularization that would make it possible to target a new field without having to remove UniPro support completely. > 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.... -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|