Re: New Development

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 03:53:58PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> 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...

I want to get the two codebases, and specs, in sync as the Moto Z is
important, being the first shipping implementation of this stuff.
Having a fork that goes off on its own doesn't help anyone here, and
will only cause confusion and duplicated effort over time.

> > 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

You have no idea... :)

thanks,

greg k-h
_______________________________________________
greybus-dev mailing list
greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev




[Index of Archives]     [Asterisk App Development]     [PJ SIP]     [Gnu Gatekeeper]     [IETF Sipping]     [Info Cyrus]     [ALSA User]     [Fedora Linux Users]     [Linux SCTP]     [DCCP]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [Yosemite Campsites]     [ISDN Cause Codes]     [Asterisk Books]

  Powered by Linux