On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 04:26:18PM +0100, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > Let's restart this discussion and focus on the main roadblock (others > > > are minor details which can be sorted out later). > > > > > > If it feels like a hack, the key issue seems to me to be the choice of > > > the API to present the GPS data to user space. Right? > > > > Or even more fundamentally, does this belong in the kernel at all? > > Yes, it does. But not necessarily in its current form. > > Now, if we'd ever have a proper GPS framework that handled everything in > > kernel space (i.e. no more gpsd) then we would be able to write kernel > > drivers that also take care of PM. But perhaps that's unlikely to ever > > be realised given the state of things (proprietary protocols, numerous > > quirky implementations, etc). > > That is what needs to happen. > > > The kernel is probably not the place to be working around issues like > > that, even if serdev at least allows for such hacks to be fairly > > isolated in drivers (unlike some of the earlier proposals touching core > > code). > > Oh, kernel is indeed right place to provide hardware abstraction -- > and that includes bug workarounds. Right, at least when such hacks can be confined to a driver and not be spread all over the place. Johan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
