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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Wed, 25 Apr 2018 12:31:29 +0200
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        "H . Nikolaus Schaller" <hns@...delico.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem

On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 10:48:19AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:34:51PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > This series adds a new subsystem for GNSS receivers (e.g. GPS
> > receivers).
> 
> YEAH!!!!
> 
> Thanks so much for doing this, great work!

Thanks!

> > This all seems to work well-enough (e.g. with gpsd), but please let me
> > know if I've overlooked something which would indeed require a TTY
> > interface instead.
> > 
> > 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. ]
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> Is this just a RFC, or a "here's a first cut at submitting this, review
> it please!" submission?  I'm glad to review if you think it's worth it
> at this point.

It's more than just an RFC, so thanks for starting to review it.

Johan