On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 17:16:35 +0200 Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/01/2018 01:09 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:48:01 +0300 > > Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 06/28/2018 04:24 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> > >>>> I know at least a few IIO developers are likely to be at the Embedded Linux > >>>> Conference Europe in a few months time. Hence this email is exploring the > >>>> possibility of us doing something we have never done for IIO before and have > >>>> a formal meet up. I would propose the topics to discuss would be loosely > >>>> around future directions for IIO development. This might consist of actual > >>>> proposals or simply discussion of pain points. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure how long a session would be sensible, but one possibility is > >>>> to propose it as a BoF as that fits in their standard schedule without needing > >>>> any additional organization - I think by default that only gives us an hour or > >>>> so. However, the deadline to propose one of those is this Sunday so things are > >>>> little tight. We don't need a fully planned schedule but it would be good to > >>>> have made a start. If we decide to do this I'll write an abstract and submit it. > >>>> > >>>> So I'm looking for topics and some idea of who is going to be there > >>>> or might be persuaded to make the trip! > >>> I'll be at ELCE and I'm very interested in sitting down and having a longer > >>> discussion about the state of the framework, potential future developments, > >>> their requirements and how to get there. > >>> > >>> I think a BoF would be good as a discussion starter and then maybe follow up > >>> on that with the people who are interested and have a more focused discussion. > >> > >> I'll be there. Although, I'm mainly involved now with IIO via Outreachy/GSoC > >> I think it is a good idea to have the meeting in the form of a BoF. > >> > >> CC-ing Eugen, I noticed he has done a lot of work recently in the IIO area. > >> > >> thanks, > >> Daniel. > > > > Cool - so it sounds like there is enough interest (given the very short notice!) > > to apply for a BoF. The tricky bit is I need to put together an abstract by > > later today. > > > > So off the top of my head topics that come to mind are: > > > > 1. Userspace ABI pain points - the recent extensive discussions around the energy > > meters have certainly shown there are some nasty corners. The currently open > > question about floating point support is also interesting (though we may well have > > come to a conclusion about that long before October). > > Some things about ABI > > 1.a. Is cross device ABI achievable or are we moving towards IIO being a > simple userspace and kernelspace bridge with each driver having its own > ABI? Is IIO the new drivers/misc? Good points. I'll work them into the abstract. Hmm. 900 word limit so it's not going to give much detail - but hopefully just enough to get the right crowd there for the discussion! Jonathan > > 1.c. Beyond demos and toys. Is IIO suitable for real-world applications? > > > > > 2. High performance usecases - (Lars leading this one if he is willing) > > DMA buffers and moving that infrastructure forward. There is a lot of > > out of kernel code around this currently, it would be nice to drag it in > > once we are sure on how it should work long term! > > > > 3. Missing in kernel consumer infrastructure. We never implemented consumer > > interfaces for events. I assume this may be because no one cares, but > > it does sometimes feel like we are working around that in some of the > > use cases rather than just fixing it. > > > > 4. The Front end / back end split. This is most interesting for SoC ADCs where > > we currently put out an IIO interface to userspace that no one cares about > > (sometimes). The plan was always to make that optional. Would be interesting > > to explore pushing this forward. This includes things like the little used > > available callbacks. > > > > 5. General performance questions - can we narrow the gap with the dodgy userspace > > hacks? > > > > N. General process discussion - Is the current maintainer / review process > > quick enough that it isn't causing anyone too much pain? What can we do > > better? I'm always happy to get some feedback on this btw. > > > > So if at all possible, what I'm looking for is additional (of better) ideas to put > > down as somewhat of a placeholder to show we have lots to talk about. > > > > If not I'll throw the above in with some editing. > > > > Jonathan > > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
