Hi all, Le mar. 26 févr. 2019 à 09:51, Koen Zandberg <k...@bergzand.net> a écrit :
> Hi Juan, > > On 2/25/19 3:19 PM, Juan Ignacio Carrano wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > First of all, great work. Now to the VID, PID matter: I don't think we > > should get any VID. A single PID may be ok. > > > > Product numbers are for products. RIOT is not a product. Rather, it is > > used to build product (or at least that's wath we hope for). Even if > > we obtained an ID it would be irrelevant for everyone except > > developers: if you develop a device, you should get your OWN ids, you > > cannot reuse your OS vendor's. > > > > </snip> > > > > I think that having a single PID for "Generic RIOT-powered device" (or > > something of the sort) is valuable, especially for development, and > > for the CI, and we only really need one, not a whole block. That, and > > the fact that we have a more or less large project should be enough > > justification to get a PID from pid.codes. Of course, the docs should > > clearly state that the PID is for use in RIOT development and should > > be changed for actual devices. > > > > A whole VID would not be useful: what would you do with so many PIDs? > > I agree with you here. First of all, I also don't see any use for a VID > for RIOT-os, but hey maybe somebody else has a use case for a full VID. > > For me, a hypothetical RIOT-os PID would be used only for development > and testing. CI jobs, people wanting to test USB or develop USB devices. > As soon as the USB device leaves the building it must have a different > VID/PID owned by the developer/company. Having a PID for this is mostly > for ease of development, so we don't have to use a random VID/PID with > all the consequences. A lot of USB functionality doesn't require a > specific VID/PID, but is purely recognized based on the descriptor > information. > > A second PID could be required if we have our own DFU enabled RIOT > bootloader. For this I wouldn't mind if it was used for actual products > as long as the RIOT bootloader is unmodified. This as in if it claims to > be the RIOT-os DFU bootloader, it should behave like the RIOT-os > bootloader and be able to flash RIOT-os on the mcu with the RIOT-os DFU > tooling. > > I think Koen perfectly sums up the situation and I agree with him. VID is pointless for RIOT, but having two PIDs (one for development, one for DFU) would be great. Of course, it should be clearly state that the devel PID must not be used outside of its original scope. BTW, If people want to be involve. We must port the lowlevel driver and test the stack against several MCUs (EFM32, STM32, Kinetis,etc...). Any help is welcome ! Cheers, > Cheers, > Koen > > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list > devel@riot-os.org > https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- Dylan Laduranty
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
