Hi Bryan,
On Wednesday 30 Nov 2016 16:17:38 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/11/16 15:30, Johan Hovold wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 02:17:49PM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 30/11/16 08:53, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 29 Nov 2016 17:40:43 Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 29/11/16 15:36, Alex Elder wrote:
What do you think?
I'm also concerned about dropping UniPro support as it would just cut the branch that the Moto-Z is sitting on. We've rushed merging greybus upstream in order to avoid the forked version making it to mainline first. Moving in a direction that would prevent Motorola from ever using the mainline kernel wouldn't be nice.
That's not an accurate description. We wanted to get this upstream and into 4.9 which was declared to be the next LTS kernel.
But I agree that dropping UniPro support from Greybus would be rather silly, especially given that there are now phones shipping that use a version of it.
So are we talking about a fork of greybus to do the IoT type stuff Pantelis and Alexandre mentioned @ ELCE ?
No, not a fork, a modularization that would make it possible to target a new field without having to remove UniPro support completely.
Greybus-UniPro Greybus-IoT (minus UniPro, SVC, TimeSync and with a modified control and firmware protocol)
We still need to know if the Motorola stuff will ever be merged with the stuff in upstream/staging and if so when/how....