On Fri 2018-06-29 14:09:14, Johan Hovold wrote:

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 02:05:54PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

quoted

On Fri 2018-06-29 13:46:46, Johan Hovold wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 11:46:07AM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

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