On Wednesday 30 Nov 2016 17:29:32 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 30/11/16 16:52, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > I first want to define what we mean by IoT > > Heh. > > IoT technically means (my understanding) a way of accessing edge devices > over the internet or allowing edge devices access to the Internet. Greybus seems of little value in that context, given that it can't be transported over the internet (now if we want to change that I'm open for discussions, but it will be a very different concept). Greybus can be useful to access sensors and other similar embedded devices (most of them being too tiny to run Linux, but that's not a requirement). While this can be used for "IoT", it's in no way limited to that, or even dependent on it. I still don't know how we should position ourselves when compared to field buses for instance. > The self-describing bits of greybus and the ability to create standard > Linux devices without caring about the actual hardware bus is the > interesting part. Unlike say USB - which is a self-describing network > but, is tightly coupled to a wire-level bus, greybus (can be made to be) > hardware agnostic. > > I think self-describing, pluggable network is what makes it a candidate > for people to rehash the abused and unloved IoT term. > > If it helps I will never type the TLA IoT again in a greybus email... :) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|