Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Greybus Subsystem Proposed For Linux 4.9 Kernel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Greybus Subsystem Proposed For Linux 4.9 Kernel

    Phoronix: Greybus Subsystem Proposed For Linux 4.9 Kernel

    Greg Kroah-Hartman is looking to land the Greybus driver subsystem into the upcoming Linux 4.9 kernel subsystem. Greybus was a central piece to Google's recently cancelled Project Ara modular smartphone...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...stem-Linux-4.9

  • #2
    Out of curiosity - Can Greybus take over from DBUS?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by boxie View Post
      Out of curiosity - Can Greybus take over from DBUS?
      in the same way that pci or usb can take over from dbus (ie. no)

      Comment


      • #4
        In case others are curious about the details, as I was, this is from the mailing list:
        Overall, it's a tiny stand-alone driver subsystem, only 37k lines, that
        implements a protocol which allows for "generic" cameras, audio devices,
        and other class type devices, as well as a bridged "physical" layer
        protocol to talk to serial, spi, uart, pwm, gpio, i2c, and even USB host
        controllers. Included here is a USB bridge host controller driver that
        interacts with a USB device that converts USB data to Unipro data,
        allowing any system to talk to a Unipro platform (no special SoC
        interface required.)
        And what's with the name greybus? The wikipedia page for UniPro doesn't actually mention it at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UniPro

        Comment


        • #5
          "Google's recently cancelled Project Ara modular smartphone"

          cancelled Project Ara

          cancelled

          (cries loudly)

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by jwh7 View Post
            In case others are curious about the details, as I was, this is from the mailing list:
            Sounds like danger. Why should I let a hardware device with its own firmware talk with my usb host controllers?

            Comment


            • #7
              So that it doesn't need drivers to work on the host system.

              Which is like, the single biggest issue Linux has compared to Windows and OS X; vendor driver support.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                Sounds like danger. Why should I let a hardware device with its own firmware talk with my usb host controllers?
                So that it doesn't need drivers to work on the host system.

                Which is like, the single biggest issue Linux has compared to Windows and OS X; vendor driver support.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sonadow View Post

                  So that it doesn't need drivers to work on the host system.

                  Which is like, the single biggest issue Linux has compared to Windows and OS X; vendor driver support.
                  Oh. Are binary blobs and Intel Management Engine because of that?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    IntelME is a backdoor, nothing more nothing less.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X