should we continue to focus on nuttx?

Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli GNUtoo at
Mon Apr 30 14:38:42 UTC 2012

The other day on IRC I was told that:
>Apr 29 00:34:36 <Hoernchen>     last thing i heard was that nuttx was 
superseded in favor of a more lightweight solution
>Apr 29 00:41:03 <steve|m>
which was made back in march(we also started working on nuttx near march) and 
contains the following:
>laf: summary we could not gain much from nuttx, rockbox could provide use 
with UI (inspiration)? steve: framebuffer is mosly compatible

I wasn't aware of all that.
Also I don't have much details on what was said since I wans't there...

Should me and Alan Carvalho de Assis continue the work we are doing?
What is the current plan?

our status is here:

The current work on my side is to:
 * make serial work without sercomm(done locally,just some configuration 
 * unbreak the booting of the calypso(require serial to work without 
sercomm,the commit that created the problem has been identified, how to fix is a 
work in progress)
* I also tried to change toolchain(I generated a toolchain with openembedded)  
to see if it fixed the issue but according to Gregory it's not the right fix.
* I also identified some dummy functions in the nuttx version of sercomm that 
we should get rid of.

On Alan Carvalho de Assis side :
he's trying to make the keypad work but he has some difficulties with it.


More information about the baseband-devel mailing list