Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

It's a good point, there doesn't seem to be much information floating around about the software that the platform will run. I can't even find a way to see the developer's mailing list (assuming such a thing exists). The developers' wiki is a bit sparse - it just has pointers to the Ti docs, etc.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

If anyone is a member of the gp32x forums, could they ask about the above. It won't let me register for some reason.

Cheers,

Simon

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

They apparently shipped some but somehow it feels to me they did not ship 100 of them already. From bits and pieces it looks to me like they did ship very few units so far only to core/lowlevel kernel/bootloader people and wait for fixing USB hardware bug (mentioned on beagleboard.org page too) before sending more units to guys interested in userspace stuff (games/emulators).

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Good questions. Except for few photos on their blog http://openpandora.org/blog.php and few posts in the forum there is not much information. As for answers - I think it is definitely 35xx, see http://openpandora.ca/ (page owner is MWeston, one of Pandora HW guys). BTW, they stated they will provide binary blobs for accelerated OpenGL. As for IVA/DSP support I dont know. It may be still too early to know some answers. To me it seems they are just happy to have the hardware working and are just starting to care about SW side (even the kernel one :-). Shipping usable devices in July to end-users (like Karel :-) seems quite unlikely to me in current state. I don't know how it was at the beginning of GP2X but I guess the first 3000 batch will sell to hardcore linux developers/gamers who will make the device usable in coming months/years for the rest. For this year I think about it like nice developer board with finished case, keyboard etc as a bonus, not finished product for ordinary user.

EDIT: as for availability - "BTW, little to no delay means production in August and delay means September-October."

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

My impression from reading the forum is that the DSP will be left to people to play with. Not sure how they plan to do sound output, whether it can be routed around the DSP and all done from the ARM kernel, etc. or even if they plan on providing a DSP kernel (and codec driver for the audio hw).

Not insurmountable problems, sounds like it could be quite fun really to do some low-level stuff :)

Wouldn't be a replacement for my N900 though :)

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

TI is getting some lessons from the community about code integration. Check posts on linux-omap ml archives from wednesday/thursday about DSP bridge integration.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Thank you. I checked the link and indeed it seems like the point of view of a HW guy. Linux is mentioned 2nd last, right before the dimensions. Certain things are a constant of life. =)
Therefore I suspect it's really the SW drop provided by the TI "Full chip entitlement" team. Which, as the name suggests, would support all the hw features (at least those that the Pandora team has agreed with TI). Nobody but TI really knows how many silicon IPs are present in OMAP and it _might_ be that some are burned off depending on the customer the units are shipping to.

About kernel developers working on it, well, good luck with that.
Here's the explanation, to avoid being provocatory, for once.

The code TI releases is periodically sync'd with the linux-omap tree, but what it means is that it is made sure it compiles and that the functionalities provided by TI are still active. There isn't really much alignment in terms of general frameworks - example is the audio driver, which afaik is not aligned to ALSA SoC. To make it short, it's more or less the same problems one would stumble into when in using the kernel we are shipping for the n800 and n810: it is not the official linux-omap and is out of sync with that.

Certainly it will be possible to do development on the kernel provided for Pandora, but it might not be trivial to contribute any significant change to mainline, because of the different codebase.

Userspace development will probably be easier, but i know little about that in general, like, for example, does it use gstreamer, pulseaudio or what?

The opengl drivers - the real beef in the userspace blob requires NDAs lasting up to 20 years, depending on the specific component, so i strongly suspect anybody able to do any meaningful X/driver development for the community will steer away from them as much as possible. But the interface is still OpenGL ES, so apps developers probably will not be limited.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

i thing it goging to use kernel fork from the TI one
for more detale ask DJWillis on irc://#beagle@irc.freenode.net you mind fine some people that work for ti on there as well

it going to use OMAP3530 you could say OMAP35xx series exist
thanks to the pandora
the pandora was orcaily to use other chip till a TI came and ofert them the OMAP3530
ti intents the pandora to be 1 first OMAP3 devise and rely show of the power of the OMAP3 chip

store gose like this 1 emploe of ti came a crose the pandora and did say 1 of it to 1 higher ups and did see the posabildi being of posaple maket so ti did lower there bach limit and it enfold to the OMAP35xx line

for exshambel 1 of devs of the pandora saet that the pandora is like ti pet project

it dos offers few that i nou of like supen to ram and disk shuting of part of the chip that are not in use

as for IVA = ?

DSP = yes it will use it
and will open for the most part
here is ti toolchain for the c6x
https://www-a.ti.com/downloads/sds_s.../download.html for open source and non-commercial software

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

The DSP is the IVA in the omap3530 (now it stands for Imaging, Video, Audio rather than Imaging, Video Accelerator). Which makes me wonder more and more what the IVA is on the omap2420 that we have. Igor? ;)

In one of the posts on the pandora wiki (http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php...dpost&p=590760), Squidge (who sounded like he was one of the team members) said that the DSP would initially be reserved for the kernel, whatever that means.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Dude! Language...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

At least _he_ answered me.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Thank you, I have already access to the TI code drops for the SDP, so I suppose the pandora kernel won't be too different.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

It's some specialized HW plus an ARM9 core. Funny thing, the ARM11 MPU can override it and have direct control to the peripherals in the IVA domain.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

What I'd most want changed from the N800 is:

A mute button...

really, I shouldn't have to fumble for the stylus to shut the thing up all of a sudden.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Hey, I was told to pipe the Pandora stuff down. You people need to make up your minds.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

We aren't a hive mind.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

You mean you can answer all of this?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

i ten to agree lest at first
but i nou some people working on the pandora kernal have lot experience in kernal developing so hue noes what they came up with

please node i not connect in any way to pandora
i just base what i say here on what i have herd

i have just bin keeping a taps on it
as it looks interesting and i am thing of getting a pandora and maybe dev for it

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

No. I actually learned a lot from Argor's reply. Not as much as I would've if he'd used moderately correctly spelled English, but still...

The fact that I didn't answer his questions in the first place might have been a clue to my ignorance on the subjects, one should think. Also, Igor could have tried to ask his questions on the Pandora developers forum, where he might have received an almost immediate answer (I understand it's pretty basic stuff for a developer, which I am not!). Of course, he might have done that, it's pretty hard to tell with people using different aliases for different forums, in which case: good on him. Or her. Whatever.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Cool :), thanks for that Igor, can we know more? I'd be interested to know how to use it, or why it's not used, etc.

The problem, as far as I can see, is that we mere mortals (read not OEMs) are not allowed to look at the OMAP 2420 Technical manual (which I presume says these sorts of things). Any clues as to where/what we are able to look at?

Thanks,

Si

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

How to use it is something that few really know. Mostly those working for companies blessed by TI.

Even debugging is not so simple, considering that there is 1 JTAG for MPU, DSP & IVA (in this sense OMAP3 is simpler) and keeping the JTAG active prevents power management. The TRM itself is of not so much help, since it mostly describes the architecture and registers of the IVA block, but one needs the specific programming manual + application notes in order to really do something, just like with the MPU and the DSP.
Then comes the fact that the DSP gateway is far simpler than a bridge and less suited for being generally used.

A certain person (i won't name) otherwise unrelated to gw/bridge, did propose some time ago to extend the GW, but never managed to produce anything usable/useful.

I consider your chances to get any info about the IVA quite slim, since TI opennes is all focused on omap3, but afaik there is no mention of the past crimes.

Maybe Quim can help there. But even with all the info needed, i think it's still not going to be a walk in the park - the DSP is comparably simpler to manage.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

No, I didn't, as I am already following this forum in my (very scarce) spare time and have none left to join another one. I'll make sure we get 1 or 2 pandoras to play with when testing patches once they are out and available, but for the moment this is it.

I was simply expecting that you were better informed about the object of such devotion that you have manifested in several occasions. Apparently I was wrong.

To conclude, it's "him", neither "her" nor "whatever" and I'm not using any alias, just my first name, i don't have enough imagination to concote anything cool/funny/enticing.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I was wrong, sorry, it's an ARM7TDMIE.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I had to...:

http://Karel.Jansens.justgotowned.com

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

I said (and on multiple occasions, even on this forum, which you apparently don't read at all either) that I'm not a developer. You asked developer questions. I did not answer them. Is it really that difficult?

And yes, I do admire the Pandora initiative. Not so much even the device itself (which any large corporation with access to cutting-edge hardware could copy), but the design process and the respect for the community.

BTW, if you really want a couple of Pandoras to play with, you'd better sign up on the mailing list, because the initial production run is limited to 3,000 units.

Now that's information you could have got from the user forum; it's also information a non-developer like myself knows about. And you didn't even have to ask to get me to concoct the answer...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Really?...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

:-S You have a quite broad definition of developer questions. They were mostly about architecture and community interaction, but nevermind.

Well, new players _have_ to come up with disrupting approaches. OTOH do you really expect Nokia to come and ask how would you like the mechanics of the next device? It _is_ done, but with studies of market segments. You are not expected to match the prototype user, of course.

From what i've seen so far, the initial version will not run linux-omap, hence it is of no interest to us, because that's the target tree.

Pandora, like the Beagle, becomes interesting when the linux-omap community have the real thing running on it, no TI forks.

So far the only really supported board is the TI SDP.
The beagle is receiving support from developers and patches are coming, but not Pandora.

So till then, no need to deprive community developers of prototypes.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Here is my 2cents. A docking station that would connect at least power without any user actions - meaning the person would not have to plug the cord in the unit to charge. The Nokia would get power via contacts built into the docking station. It would be even nice to see the USB port be contact based too, but I'd be happy with just power.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Very easy just leave the nokia charger in the socket at all times and just plug the other end whenever u want. How is that different from a dock..... other than it the dock being more bulky and heavy?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

First, I only have a N800 and N770, so if this is different already on the N810 I didn't realize it.

But I do not want to have to manually connect the power cord to the device. I want to be able to simply place the unit in the docking station and have the connections made for me. I use the tablet as a wireless touchscreen for my home automation software and I would like users to be able to pick the unit up, pick songs, movies, turn lights on/off, etc, and then put the unit back down in the dock. I don't want to have to rely on them to plug the unit back in.

I'm not saying this docking station needs to be part of the original package. It could be an optional purchase. But it needs to be part of the original design so that someone can make a dock. The current power connections are just too small to use (you cannot make a dock that will reliably plug in such a small power connector).

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

First, thanks for a great product! The most important item that this tablet needs is a 1 gig internal memory. One idea could be what they do with microcontrollers is using a 2 line serial eeprom upgrade. There should be some that are bigger than 128 megs. That way you can plug in a bigger eeprom for more memory. Or set up the Linux base with an expandable memory that way you can restore the backups to the new larger ram setup. I am finding that 128 megs is a real pain in the but! The next would be WiMax with reception at a greater distance like 5 miles if possible. The next would be a true USB powered access expansion port. Another would be a USB VGA port. In order to access this all would be nice to have a battery at double the capacity. A keyboard would be nice but not needed since I'm using a bluetooth keyboard works fine. An internal harddrive would be nice but not needed, since I'm using an 80 gig IPOD as a external USB harddrive plus 4gig SD cards. A plugin cell phone adapter would be nice but not needed. Builtin GPS would be nice. Keep the SD card slots! I wouldn't care about the form factor being a little bigger, since I use this more than my 17" laptop! What I would like to see the Nokia Nx00 overtake the iPhone, and be an even more useful internet appliance that it is now. Keep the great ideas comming!

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

You left out the Zero Point Module.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

To add to things: I'd like to see there be a choice of three browsers given as a first-boot setup item: microB, Fennec, and Opera Mobile. Yes, I know that the latter is not announced for the IT, but it would be nice for the platform to have Opera once again as an option. In addition, the two Mozilla browsers keep the idea of open development. Of course, both browsers need to be in 'better than alpha' mode.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

i suspect that someone getting webkit going is more likely then opera returning...

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Forgot about Webkit; good point.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

The dock idea is good, even just a usb hub with regular usb host support in it along with power and whatever other connections are cheap and easy to add (wired lan? mic? video out?).

I'd also love it if the hardware was a bit faster to support smooth video playback without file coonversion, also a more responsive touch screen and faster app startup, faster browser would all be good.

The nav keys do the job but maybe dedicated scrolling buttons, ball or wheel would be good, dragging pages and using scrollbars are annoying.

I like the N800 and the N810 keyboard and screen are great improvements but not compelling enough (yet) for me to upgrade.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

To me a full face 5 3/4" LCD screen with a 3mm bezel would be perfect. It would match the current ~pocket size of the N800, give you more room, and allow just enough non-touch sensitive face area to wrap a silicon screen around.

I suppose speakers that point out the back would work as well as forward facing speakers.

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Check it out:
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/mobile

Ubuntu MID edition seems to have (knowingly or otherwise) taken a few cues from the formidable Canola interface... and I like it! What's featured is a WM interface designed with handhelds in mind.

I would like to see something like this implemented as the N900 window manager (WM) interface. In other words, I would like to see something that leaves the desktop paradigm behind and thinks about the WM interface strictly from a mobile perspective. Hey, we're talking open technologies here, right?

Also, I would like to see 3D for the WM even if it's not accelerated. Quake 2 is playable on the N8x0 currently, right? By implication, the system is capable of zooming quads and rotating cuboids. Very low res window textures can be used during animations or non-focused apps to conserve memory for the compositor, but can greatly increase productivity on the small screen through a more easily accessible desktop that's virtually bigger than physical 800x480 block. A quick tap to zoom out to a grid of running apps (and launchable ones), then a click of the app you want to use (IMO) beats the heck out of barely descriptive icons hogging the left side of the screen and pull out menus with hidden options.

Perhaps a gifted developer can port ubuntu MID to the Tablets for the more adventurous among us, and to provide a demonstration to the Maemo community that there are other open interface options that are easily integrated. Any takers?


YARR!
}:^)~

Captineous Corrupticus

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

And a puppy. Don't forget the puppy. Or world peace. It should come with a Zero Point Power module instead of the battery, a puppy, and world peace.

Oh, and, hey, if we're tapping into Zero Point energy, that means we can probably use it as a medium, and thus make real ETHERnet for networking.


So, Zero Point Energy module, ZeroPointNet, a puppy, and world peace. Do we need anything else?

Re: What woud you realistically like to see in the N900?
 

Moar boobiez pleez! Kthx.