Hi Johan, > Am 27.02.2018 um 08:04 schrieb Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > 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. Thanks, Pavel for supporting our view. > > But not necessarily in its current form. Is this a "yes after some code fixes"? Pavel mentioned an example where such an evolutionary approach was taken. > >>> 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. It seems that you forgot that the driver we propose is not spread all over the place. It *is* confined to a single driver thanks to the serdev api. BR and thanks, Nikolaus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
