cpu-speed limitations

[Alex Kavanagh]

Jay Vaughan wrote, On 05/08/08 13:11:
>> That kind of sucks doesn't it.  That there is a processor on the chip
>> that could do, say, scrolling independently of the main processor  
>> and we
>> aren't allowed to know how to do it.  I'm sure it's a great chip,  
>> but if
>> we can't drive it in interesting ways:
>>
>> a) it means that Glamo doesn't look very good.
>> b) developers will think that Glamo isn't very good and will ask for
>> something else.
>>
>> Does this scenario work well for S Media?
>>     
>
>
> I think the point is this: whoever *has* access to the documentation  
> at OpenMoko shouldn't be working on *anything else* except for getting  
> the features of this chip available to us in the public sphere.

I don't think that this is necessarily the case.  OM people have lots of
fish to fry and writing a acceleration code running inside the Glamo
probably isn't *the* most important thing to be working on.  Getting the
core kernel, device libraries and some application software working IMHO
*is* the most important thing.

>  If  
> you've got the docs, why work on something that a public community  
> member can work on?  Work on the hard stuff - that which we can't get  
> the docs for here in the open community - and push the hardware as  
> much as possible.. please!
>   

I think you might be shooting the wrong people here.  S.Media are the
'bad' guys as they won't/can't provide the documentation.  However, if
this were always the case then maybe the Glamo was a poor choice. 
However, I imagine that it *was* the right decision _at_the_time_ the
decision was made; everything is clearer with hindsight and everybody
*thinks* they would've made a better decision.

-- 
Alex.