Who could have guessed, eh?
Sebastien
On 10/20/25 18:06, Tomek CEDRO wrote:
well. :-(
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 3:02 PM Alan C. Assis <[email protected]> wrote:
+1
It is better to use the right naming.
Fitbit implemented support for System V on NuttX and promised to donate it,
but after Google acquired them, none contribution came from them.
Google also used NuttX on ARA Project, but no single code line was
submitted to the NuttX mainline.
BR,
Alan
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 8:07 AM Tomek CEDRO <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello world :-)
There is a very interesting and useful PR by @JianyuWang0623 that adds
support for Android System Init functionality to NuttX [1][2] with
working example on qemu [3]. This is alternative to SystemV Init and
probably other init designs. Please help in reviewing the change :-)
My only concern is naming convention here because just "system" and
"system init" is used (i.e. CONFIG_SYSTEM_INIT, CONFIG_SYSTEM_SYSTEM).
This may be a bit confusing because we do not know what init system
standard is used and we silently assume Android. My proposition is to
use "Android System Init" naming convention (i.e.
CONFIG_SYSTEM_ANDROID_INIT or something like that), so things are
self-explanatory, and other init systems may be used when necessary in
future without confusion. I am not insisting here and will follow the
community choice.
Please let us know what you think :-)
Thanks :-)
Tomek
[1] https://github.com/apache/nuttx-apps/pull/3192
[2] https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215
[3] https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/17215
--
CeDeROM, SQ7MHZ, http://www.tomek.cedro.info
