On 07/12/16 17:03, Sandeep Patil wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Bryan O'Donoghue > <pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:pure.logic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > On 29/11/16 15:36, Alex Elder wrote: > > What do you think? > > I agree with everything you said about SVC, control, TimeSync and to and > as it currently is - firmware too. > > I also agree we need a well defined long term target to shoot for. > Implied in the target of becoming a self-describing IoT bus is that its > no longer a UniPro centric bus. > > I think the main question/concern (mostly question) I have is - are we > going to try to maintain any type of UniPro support and if so > > - To what level > - On what hardware > > Also I wonder what take Motorola has (if any) on the whole zapping > UniPro thing. It would be nice to somehow support UniPro but, given we > have no hardware to test it out on - it's not clear how productive or > realistic that would really be - perhaps a complete waste of time. > > > > FWIW, I still have the hardware to test on :). So, I can help if testing > is the > concern. Obviously, that doesn't scale though. > > - ssp Me too. Most of us still do. There's been talk of DHL/UPS or use of a hammer[1] (not a joke) but so far all is still present. Of course we'd need to be booting a TOT kernel on the hardware to really validate things (an interesting project in itself) :) - this may be the way to go if DHL/hammer/dynamite/nukes are not going to be required long-term [1] Johan will be doing this : https://youtu.be/5ku0rI0o6rg [2] Alex will be doing this : https://youtu.be/wcW_Ygs6hm0 _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|