On 11/30/2016 08:52 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Bryan, On Wednesday 30 Nov 2016 16:50:04 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:On 30/11/16 16:19, Laurent Pinchart wrote: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)I first want to define what we mean by IoT, see my reply to Alex on that topic.Also - will we stick with Nuttx on the firmware side or move to something shiny and new like Zephyr...Upstream Zephyr uses Gerrit, so count me out :-)
But .. but .. the build system actually works!
We would need to make the spec allow for UniPro to co-exist or not matter too. Lots of rewording needed here.
_______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|