Hi all, So a mixed bag for ELCE. The straight forward talk on lessons learned etc for IIO was accepted, but the BoF to discuss future directions was not. Anyhow, I'll be at the conference as will at least a few others and I am sure we can find a venue for an 'unofficial' BoF. I'll send an email nearer to the time so we can try an find a slot in which maximum people can meet up. If anyone want to catch up separately, just let me know. I should be able to get up earlier on Sunday or delay returning on the Thursday if it is useful (the rare advantages of being able to catch a frequent train to a conference :)) Looking forward to catching up with those I've met before and meeting those I haven't! Jonathan On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:27:33 +0100 Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:07:40 +0100 > Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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! > > In the interests of a pleasant Sunday evening, submitted. I've put a proviso that > we'll probably update the topics depending on what happens in the next few months. > > Thanks all and please keep the conversation going on the mailing list. > If it doesn't happen at ELCE we can either do something informal or look at > other venues in the near future. Going through the exercise has made > if clear that as a community there are useful things to talk about! > > Anyhow, hope to see some of you in Edinburgh (it's really nice by the way if > anyone was wavering - I was there on holiday last month for a few days!) > > Jonathan > > > > > 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 > > > -- > 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
