Hello everyone,
About 3 months have silently passed, without anything visibly changing. I can't help but ask myself if Linaro has abandoned the 96borad effort in its original form and resolved to make it a mostly Linaro internal project. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind, even in such a form it would ultimately benefit the broader audience in terms of better upstream support of ARMv7 and AArch64.
I do think though, that "the community" deserves to know if they are still part of the target audience and can count on any form of support. Personally I have a bit of a "Pandaboard past OMAPgeddon" feeling at the moment
Thomas
Hi Thomas
The compliance specification and checklist template have been in place. We have just completed the compliance test for Dragonboard 410c and HiKey. The test reports will be sent to board vendors today to respond/address the non-compliant areas.
The community is of course still the target audience and there is no change of 96Boards efforts and what we are hoping to achieve with community support.
We will be publishing latest work in the upcoming Linaro BKK16 Connect.
Thanks Yang
On 02/05/2016 11:11 AM, Yang Zhang wrote:
The compliance specification and checklist template have been in place.
Yes, the specification has been around for a while, and so have been various comments, suggestions and criticism. Yet there is no publicly visible reaction.
I first heard from you now, that a checklist is "in place". Could you please point me to it? Considerable search effort has yielded no result. This would benefit everyone who wants to either design a compliant board or is looking to buy a board and wants to verify the expected characteristics.
We have just completed the compliance test for Dragonboard 410c and HiKey. The test reports will be sent to board vendors today to respond/address the non-compliant areas.
That is very nice to hear. Of course it would have been even better if that would have happened earlier, as by now there is a high risk that hardware or software issues will be not possible to rectify or it will be expensive.
In that sense I really hope, that you also have run compliance tests for the other Boards like Bubblegum, Helium, MCIMX7, Husky and possibly other, yet unannounced, boards. It would be really sad to see another wave of boards becoming available, but non-compliant on arrival and thus constituting wasted effort.
The community is of course still the target audience and there is no change of 96Boards efforts and what we are hoping to achieve with community support.
That is very nice to hear. I am looking forward to Linaro actually involving the community.
We will be publishing latest work in the upcoming Linaro BKK16 Connect.
Could you please be more specific as to what this latest work is, or is this going to be a big reveal?
On 5 February 2016 at 11:06, Thomas B. Rücker <thomas@ruecker.fi mailto:thomas@ruecker.fi> wrote:
Hello everyone, About 3 months have silently passed, without anything visibly changing. I can't help but ask myself if Linaro has abandoned the 96borad effort in its original form and resolved to make it a mostly Linaro internal project. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind, even in such a form it would ultimately benefit the broader audience in terms of better upstream support of ARMv7 and AArch64. I do think though, that "the community" deserves to know if they are still part of the target audience and can count on any form of support. Personally I have a bit of a "Pandaboard past OMAPgeddon" feeling at the moment.
On 8 February 2016 at 12:04, Thomas B. Rücker thomas@ruecker.fi wrote:
On 02/05/2016 11:11 AM, Yang Zhang wrote:
The compliance specification and checklist template have been in place.
Yes, the specification has been around for a while, and so have been various comments, suggestions and criticism. Yet there is no publicly visible reaction.
I first heard from you now, that a checklist is "in place". Could you please point me to it? Considerable search effort has yielded no result. This would benefit everyone who wants to either design a compliant board or is looking to buy a board and wants to verify the expected characteristics.
As mentioned above, we expect to publish the checklist, as well as the report in the upcoming Connect.
We have just completed the compliance test for Dragonboard 410c and HiKey. The test reports will be sent to board vendors today to respond/address the non-compliant areas.
That is very nice to hear. Of course it would have been even better if that would have happened earlier, as by now there is a high risk that hardware or software issues will be not possible to rectify or it will be expensive.
In that sense I really hope, that you also have run compliance tests for the other Boards like Bubblegum, Helium, MCIMX7, Husky and possibly other, yet unannounced, boards. It would be really sad to see another wave of boards becoming available, but non-compliant on arrival and thus constituting wasted effort.
You are right in saying that similar compliance tests process need to be introduced for other upcoming boards as well, however, we might not be the place to conduct these tests in all cases. It is meant to be self serviceable, we simply do not have that level of resources handling all tests.
The community is of course still the target audience and there is no change of 96Boards efforts and what we are hoping to achieve with community support.
That is very nice to hear. I am looking forward to Linaro actually involving the community.
We will be publishing latest work in the upcoming Linaro BKK16 Connect.
Could you please be more specific as to what this latest work is, or is this going to be a big reveal?
To have spec-compliant hardware is not the end goal but means. So to achieve the end goal, we are also putting ground work in place both hardware and software aspects. Not sure we are looking for a big reveal but incremental improvements we are hoping to make but introducing certain things to help the boards already out there, and set examples for those yet to come.
On 5 February 2016 at 11:06, Thomas B. Rücker <thomas@ruecker.fi mailto:thomas@ruecker.fi> wrote:
Hello everyone, About 3 months have silently passed, without anything visibly changing. I can't help but ask myself if Linaro has abandoned the 96boradeffort
in its original form and resolved to make it a mostly Linaro internal project. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind, even in such a form it would ultimately benefit the broader audience in terms of better upstream support of ARMv7 and AArch64. I do think though, that "the community" deserves to know if they are still part of the target audience and can count on any form of support. Personally I have a bit of a "Pandaboard past OMAPgeddon" feeling at the moment.-- Thomas
Dev mailing list Dev@lists.96boards.org https://lists.96boards.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
ᐧ
-
Thomas B. Rücker -
Yang Zhang