USB update from Gordon, new direction

That sounds like a far more promising direction, as getting low-latency realtime operation from a 1-core CPU running a Linux kernel was always destined for disappointment, a design fault in fact.  The VPU in contrast seems to have oodles of power.

Unfortunately, pushing the USB work into the VPU will make Pi a more closed platform than it is currently.

Morgaine Dinova wrote:

 

...Unfortunately, pushing the USB work into the VPU will make Pi a more closed platform than it is currently.

A "horses for courses" compromise, I think. Most Pi customers would probably settle for closed low level stuff that_just_worked so that they could concentrate on the higher level applications that they were already trying to implement. Those with the chops to do low level hacking are probably looking to better documented / more proven hardware already (unless they're very stubborn...)

It sounds like a bit of a **** or bust move to me (asterisks mine btw). In any case it's an interesting move away from the well-trodden "pesky Linux timing" get out. Time will tell whether tossing data at a fast-in-a-parallel-kind-of-way-but-not-really-expecting-this-sort-of-job section of the silicon will bear fruit.

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

It sounds like a bit of a **** or bust move to me (asterisks mine btw). In any case it's an interesting move away from the well-trodden "pesky Linux timing" get out.

Well they don't really have much in the way of options.  They're currently releasing a partially broken product, and given their preoccupation with image at all costs, they probably want to fix the USB by hook or by crook as a priority.  Well the hook won't work because Linux is not a realtime kernel, so the crook of doing USB handling in the VPU is their only real alternative.

Replacing the BCM2835 by a different SoC with a fully operational USB is also an alternative in principle, but I suspect not a realistic one at this stage.

How do they expect the community to help with a piece of software that runs on an undocumented piece of hardware?

I also asked the question on their Forum how much time they expect this new development strategy to take.

I never got an answer on that. Creating an usb host implementation from scratch seems like a terrible lot of work to me, specially if it's done by a couple

of people in their spare time.

In the mean while, people believe again the issue will get solved and sales keep going.. 

Luc Cool wrote:

 

How do they expect the community to help with a piece of software that runs on an undocumented piece of hardware?

I also asked the question on their Forum how much time they expect this new development strategy to take.

I never got an answer on that. Creating an usb host implementation from scratch seems like a terrible lot of work to me, specially if it's done by a couple

of people in their spare time.

In the mean while, people believe again the issue will get solved and sales keep going.. 

Regardless of the availability of documentation it's still a big ask - all the information in the world won't help if there's maybe only a dozen people in the known universe that could thow an implementation together in a timely manner. Even more so if those dozen people don't have to rely on a successful implementation in order to eat.

I'm seeing apologists over at the other place referring to the Pi as an ongoing beta and inferring that it's caveat emptor for anyone who buys a Pi for any purpose other than as a low cost command line educational tool and I feel it puts the whole open source philosophy in a difficult position:

1) The Pi is piggybacking on the Linux community, but only because it's a convenient and free (as in beer) operating system. Linux might be getting wider exposure as a result, but I'm not sure that exposure will be positive in the long run. If I were one of the Keepers Of The Kernel I'd be telling the Foundation to pull their fingers out, lest I publically distance my product from their sillyness. Unfortunately everybody is free to use Linux, even in really unflattering implementations...

2) Many Linux users welcome the Pi as a cheap bit of hardware and are happy to ignore / make excuses for lack of documention / the proprietary technology / some woeful software and hardware problems. This selfishness doesn't help customers who find that their new piece of hardware isn't as good as everybody says it is and then get short shrift when they ask for solutions.

I'm no open source evangelist, but I do recognise the importance of the movement as a foil against the excesses of "the other guys". The trouble (and it's manifesting itself with the whole Pi thing) is that very few within the movement appear willing to criticise anything vaguely connected with open source - even if it's patently problematic. It's easy to rail against [enter name of multinational here], or to stroke one's beard while waffling about the finer points of GNU, but to the 99% of people who just want hardware / software that doesn't suck then it's arcane and irrelevant. A bit more pragmatism required perhaps

And no, we're not all in the position to "fix it ourselves" - even if it is all open and documented (and let's face it - a lot of open stuff suffers from lack of documentation / commenting and the whole github etc model is out of the ark). Even the smartest of us will at some point have to call upon the services of a plumber, mechanic, lawyer, or other specialist because we want the job done right. Waiting for someone in the community to come fix that burst pipe in the roof - for free and in their spare time - will only end in disappointment (and mouldy carpets).

Someone must be making some money from 1/2 million sales of the Pi. Maybe it should be up to them to fix the issues (or at least publicly state what it can or cannot do). But that will never happen so long as the apologists have their way.

Luc Cool wrote:

 

How do they expect the community to help with a piece of software that runs on an undocumented piece of hardware?

I also asked the question on their Forum how much time they expect this new development strategy to take.

I never got an answer on that. Creating an usb host implementation from scratch seems like a terrible lot of work to me, specially if it's done by a couple

of people in their spare time.

In the mean while, people believe again the issue will get solved and sales keep going.. 

Regardless of the availability of documentation it's still a big ask - all the information in the world won't help if there's maybe only a dozen people in the known universe that could thow an implementation together in a timely manner. Even more so if those dozen people don't have to rely on a successful implementation in order to eat.

I'm seeing apologists over at the other place referring to the Pi as an ongoing beta and inferring that it's caveat emptor for anyone who buys a Pi for any purpose other than as a low cost command line educational tool and I feel it puts the whole open source philosophy in a difficult position:

1) The Pi is piggybacking on the Linux community, but only because it's a convenient and free (as in beer) operating system. Linux might be getting wider exposure as a result, but I'm not sure that exposure will be positive in the long run. If I were one of the Keepers Of The Kernel I'd be telling the Foundation to pull their fingers out, lest I publically distance my product from their sillyness. Unfortunately everybody is free to use Linux, even in really unflattering implementations...

2) Many Linux users welcome the Pi as a cheap bit of hardware and are happy to ignore / make excuses for lack of documention / the proprietary technology / some woeful software and hardware problems. This selfishness doesn't help customers who find that their new piece of hardware isn't as good as everybody says it is and then get short shrift when they ask for solutions.

I'm no open source evangelist, but I do recognise the importance of the movement as a foil against the excesses of "the other guys". The trouble (and it's manifesting itself with the whole Pi thing) is that very few within the movement appear willing to criticise anything vaguely connected with open source - even if it's patently problematic. It's easy to rail against [enter name of multinational here], or to stroke one's beard while waffling about the finer points of GNU, but to the 99% of people who just want hardware / software that doesn't suck then it's arcane and irrelevant. A bit more pragmatism required perhaps

And no, we're not all in the position to "fix it ourselves" - even if it is all open and documented (and let's face it - a lot of open stuff suffers from lack of documentation / commenting and the whole github etc model is out of the ark). Even the smartest of us will at some point have to call upon the services of a plumber, mechanic, lawyer, or other specialist because we want the job done right. Waiting for someone in the community to come fix that burst pipe in the roof - for free and in their spare time - will only end in disappointment (and mouldy carpets).

Someone must be making some money from 1/2 million sales of the Pi. Maybe it should be up to them to fix the issues (or at least publicly state what it can or cannot do). But that will never happen so long as the apologists have their way.

Jonathan Garrish wrote:

 

Regardless of the availability of documentation it's still a big ask - all the information in the world won't help if there's maybe only a dozen people in the known universe that could thow an implementation together in a timely manner.

One of the people trying to bring bits forward to a newer device-tree supporting kernel already tried doing a proper hci usb driver and gave up, and at least part of that was due to lack of documentation on the synopsys core.

I'm seeing apologists over at the other place referring to the Pi as an ongoing beta and inferring that it's caveat emptor for anyone who buys a Pi for any purpose other than as a low cost command line educational tool and I feel it puts the whole open source philosophy in a difficult position:

That's all very well, but that sentiment needs to go on the top of the front page instead of the $25 tag line if that's how they really feel.

The open source philosophy is always in a difficult position in this regard. It can only work as long as someone is willing to donate time/funding to writing something. Usually that 'generous' donation has other motivations, whether a lone developer scratching an itch that interests him in his spare time or a large corporation funding development in a particular direction. It's rarely quite as free as we'd like it to be.

but to the 99% of people who just want hardware / software that doesn't suck then it's arcane and irrelevant. A bit more pragmatism required perhaps

Seriously though, how many of those 99% are really the target market here ?

The tinkerers won't care and the people interested in learning can actually learn a whole lot with something that sucks / or is broke just by trying to fix it to be the way they like it.

Even the smartest of us will at some point have to call upon the services of a plumber, mechanic, lawyer, or other specialist because we want the job done right. Waiting for someone in the community to come fix that burst pipe in the roof - for free and in their spare time - will only end in disappointment (and mouldy carpets).

Sorry, this bit made me laugh.. not sure where in the world you are, but here in the UK there used to be a program called something like  'cowboy builders' showing us exactly what some of those 'specialists' are really like.

I don't care what field of expertise you want to comment on, if there's money, shareholders (and lawyers ) involved then it's never about doing the job right, it's about doing it as cheaply as possible while charging the customer as much as possible.  Universal rule. Don't be surprised when it applies to the Pi or Open source as well.