On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 06:45:14PM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > On 12/05/2016 09:41 AM, 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? > > I think this is as good an idea as any. Now that it's licensed, maybe > that can mark the turning point that makes us stamp version 1.0 of the > spec. It's not going to perfectly match the code, but at this point > there's no value in making that happen. > > So unless someone else objects, I think we ought to do this. Just > say "1.0 is done; onward." I agree, I'll go mark the spec like that today and push it out... thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ greybus-dev mailing list greybus-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/greybus-dev
|