Re: New Development

Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:57:10 -0800

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 08:46:41AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 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...

This is now done, we have a 1.0 specification, attached below is the
.pdf file for it.

thanks,

greg k-h