On 30/11/16 16:19, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> 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.
Fair enough.
Any ideas/favourites re:
- An initial host board
- A host device bus {SPI, I2C, etc}
- A !unipro-greybus module(s)
Also - will we stick with Nuttx on the firmware side or move to
something shiny and new like Zephyr...
We would need to make the spec allow for UniPro to co-exist or not
matter too. Lots of rewording needed here.
---
bod
_______________________________________________
greybus-dev mailing list
greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|