Hi, > Am 19.11.2018 um 19:44 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hi, > > On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 09:22:59 +0100 > "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >>> Am 18.11.2018 um 22:57 schrieb Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> Here is another chapter of the story to get gta04 gnss power >>> management into the mainline kernel. >>> There is a w2sg0004 without wakeup line in there, so power state >>> can only be determined indirectly by looking at the serial data lines. >>> Then there as also an lna which needs to be powered for real gps >>> reception. That part needs probably more discussion, since it might >>> be an idea to have it more generalized since it has nothing todo >>> with the chip itself. >> >> On the other hand if we follow the "SoC is the spider in the net" >> way of looking at DTS hierarchy, we have the uart as a child of the >> SoC and the gnss receiver as a serdev child of the UART. The LNA >> is even one step more distantly connected to the gnss. So it makes >> sense to me to have it as a property/reference of the gnss chip's >> DTS record which is a sibling of the compatible records. So the only >> place where it can be reasonably processed is the driver. >> > Or the lna is a child of the gnss receiver. Well, this IMHO would assume the gnss receiver is a bus master... > The whole thing > should probably not be overdesigned, but it does not make sense that > every gnss chip driver has some lna logic. > Maybe the regulator should just be stored in the struct > gnss_device and then drivers/gnss/core.c takes care. Probably yes, but likely not difficult to refactor and generalize later if users of other chips report a similar need. More important is to get upstream support for the gta04 with this chip. BR, Nikolaus
