linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/7] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180424175050.GG4615@localhost>
Date:   Tue, 24 Apr 2018 19:50:50 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     "H. Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Discussions about the Letux Kernel 
        <letux-kernel@...nphoenux.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 07:40:00PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi Johan,
> 
> > Am 24.04.2018 um 18:34 schrieb Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>:

> > As proof-of-concept I have implemented drivers for receivers based on
> > two common GNSS chipsets (SiRFstar and u-blox), but due to lack of
> > hardware these have so far only been tested using mockup devices and a
> > USB-serial-based GPS device (using out-of-tree code). [ Let me know if
> > you've got any evalutation kits to spare. ]
> 
> Ok, those drivers look nice on first glance.
> 
> BTW: I have refactored our w2sg00x4 driver into a gps-core (still creating
> a /dev/GPS0) and a driver using a common API.
> 
> With that it should almost fit by coping some lines from your serdev based
> device drivers.

I think it should be done the other way round (if I understand you
correctly), that is, by adding support for configurations were WAKEUP is
left not connected to the sirf driver instead. I had that use-case in
mind when implementing the driver, and some ideas of how it should be
done, but did not get around to actually implement it yet.

Thanks,
Johan