On Fri 2018-06-29 14:09:14, Johan Hovold wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2018-06-29 13:46:46, Johan Hovold wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:46:07AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Finally, note that documentation (including kerneldoc) remains to be > > > > > > written, but hopefully this will not hinder review given that the > > > > > > current interfaces are fairly self-describing. > > > > > > > > > > This all looks great. Thanks for doing this work and adding a new > > > > > subsystem for something that has been asked for for many years. > > > > > > > > > > All now merged in my tree, nice job! > > > > > > > > I don't think discussion was finished on this one. > > > > > > > > In particular, we agreed that /dev/gnssrawX would be better device > > > > name, so that we still have place where to put proper abstraction > > > > layer in future. > > > > > > I did not agree with you on that. I said we could consider that name if > > > this was to be changed at all, which I do not think is necessary for > > > the reasons spelled out in this thread. > > > > So, again: there's nothing gnss specific in those patches. It does not > > know about the format of the data passed around. (Best you can claim > > that somehow data flow characteristics are unique to gnss.) And this > > takes namespace needed for real gnss subsystem. Please don't do it. > > This is the real gnss subsystem. Get over it. Congratulations. You have created gnss subsystem that has 0 lines of code that are gnss-specific. This is not real gnss subsystem. This is pipe that passes data, similar to /dev/psaux or mouse on /dev/ttyS0. Sooner or later, real gnss subsystem (with unified interface) will be needed, as it was for input, and this "pipe and gpio" thing should not hog required namespace. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
