From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1524643889; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=zAUElQ8JZ15N5BwtSNdFt9+gBfZf0f0lJXpTtOzerXy2BBnmGFr1nB58H28I8jU5nW TpGNFnFL5FLNzg+CLZxlcnxrC5kfd0UeHFfBF7TpyeDh3arVrEL+b0aQsIVMALUVmqVI J5gGc6v3stFDu23GIB0oA+GfglR+c62tCqpB51cwjjt6RQkY0/66+lhzMT09EEA0czaW Q/ja9awZwNL6xNGHBEc1pX9/S2jzNAB/x8yOyEzDd3tXPm2y73XTX3dgFteHIbxIlGQO FyJ2z9H4XtLcB7Sp8E8kwCvTCkMFLgm/DSkZRAGrgbQkGiG2/FuRvctopSzeDFXsXRmo IJ9Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:dkim-signature :arc-authentication-results; bh=M8JvaPmKcblmUmCMw1ce19k9BgYiDZt/WODktpuKX6s=; b=h5MPcZxNvQiDw41Ta/FZGaNkr6kJVMLh0XfU4duRwyE90dMkrkT9/xll/pa3M9JNep K+oSN/rKvPW1I4/QnbFFqAVXGeQnMgxZqs07Mf67FDDg6bDJCVFNm9CGzHJhZVY/4Umv Mt2Tx58TIeaFg5/vP/lhCSou6DfH7+3DJKNJaZdRfWiemvFHiZAaSeOWAy0HynKd6fPX s7nmVS+sMGG+KK6VjBMmgTETv+liF29wom0NhgaDcdulcaFv1J5RK8BYUGQA7LyD6B3F EEBYpNrPp4Thz4RhAEzhGbqCly4UgUY+G0dZVNJZQV//Y+VTbOdwqzgPY41M+vPnVtrv qFpQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=HkIqYKxl; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jhovold@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jhovold@gmail.com Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com header.s=20161025 header.b=HkIqYKxl; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jhovold@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.41 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jhovold@gmail.com X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZp0fnKMY4bhGgEJgV0eTSHOnfnoA7Za24m7SPZoNYiIMQvG2lVNySoEIBBpFj3z5+DBuBp4eQ== Sender: Johan Hovold Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 10:11:20 +0200 From: Johan Hovold To: "H. Nikolaus Schaller" Cc: Johan Hovold , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Andreas Kemnade , Arnd Bergmann , Pavel Machek , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Discussions about the Letux Kernel , "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] gnss: add new GNSS subsystem Message-ID: <20180425081120.GL4615@localhost> References: <20180424163458.11947-1-johan@kernel.org> <31CF06C6-D6ED-4930-8D81-12256A518059@goldelico.com> <20180424175050.GG4615@localhost> <8F4FAF5B-AAA9-4D46-A022-99B96C74ABFA@goldelico.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8F4FAF5B-AAA9-4D46-A022-99B96C74ABFA@goldelico.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.5 (2018-04-13) X-getmail-retrieved-from-mailbox: INBOX X-GMAIL-THRID: =?utf-8?q?1598647061282688193?= X-GMAIL-MSGID: =?utf-8?q?1598704990815496707?= X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 09:44:08PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: > > Am 24.04.2018 um 19:50 schrieb Johan Hovold : > > 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. > > Hm. Yes, the w2sg00x4 is a Sirf based chip. > > > I had that use-case in mind when implementing > > s/implementing/reinventing/ > > > the driver, and some ideas of how it should be > > done, but did not get around to actually implement it yet. > > What do you need ideas for? We have that function working and > submitted year after year, but it was always rejected for API > reasons. > > You could have simply reused what we have proposed [1] and just > adapt it to the new API instead of writing a new driver (which > is missing some features for us). Your code was broken or needed to be updated in several ways as I pointed out in the thread you refer to. It also did not support all those systems that use the same family of chips, but which has the WAKEUP signal connected. > "proof-of-concept" is misleading if you expect this to become > *the* Sirf driver and we are just invited to add some features > to that. Making our own work and proposals completely obsolete. > > What I find really strange and foul play is that we are in the > review process and then comes a hidden counter-proposal by the > reviewer. Dude, in the very same thread you refer to above, after being asked to reiterate your proposal to find and appropriate abstraction level you reply: "Yes, please feel free to write patches that implement it that way." Now I've done just that for you, and then you whine about that too. SiRF is a very common chip and I wanted to make sure that the common setup with WAKEUP connected was supported from the start. I'll get to your configuration in time too. Johan > [1]: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/843392/