On 05/12/16 15:41, Greg KH wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:29:43PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: >> On 05/12/16 15:20, Jim Wylder wrote: >>> Unipro is quite capable of using i2c as a control path, but the ARM >>> processor on the TSB doesn't have enough power gates. We have to >>> completely power off the TSB to meet current drain targets for idle >>> state. >>> >>> We do not currently have a gbsim. >>> >>> Jim >> >> I guess another approach to take is to start to cherry-pick the Moto Z >> patches and >> >> 1. Ensure they don't break what we have upstream >> 2. Try to add parallel support to gbsim to validate them >> 3. The spec would definitely need some hand-holding (alot of) hand >> holding >> >> If we try to take the Moto Z sources in - the Greybus spec should >> reflect the integrated set ... after all a formal spec is a good thing. > > I agree. > > I want to bump the spec version number soon to make it a "released" > spec, but I worry about this merge. Should I just cut what we have > today in the spec as a 1.0, and then we work to make the merge "2.0" to > allow everyone to work together better? Seems like the right way to do it from my POV anyway. It makes sense to baseline on a V1 and then go a munge together a V2. I'm not sure how everybody else feels about taking in the Moto Z stuff but, it seems to me as if its the best fit for adding different transport layers while continuing to support UniPro anyway... > Oh, and for those that might have missed it, we now have a proper > license for the spec and implementing the spec, so everyone should be > happy: > https://github.com/projectara/greybus-spec/commit/7c76600bcbc372e35d1f654c121745aa332c7b09 can't have been easy getting all that legalese done officially --- bod _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|