On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 06:02:09PM +0200, Marcus Wolf wrote: > Hi folks, > > I developed a radio shield for the 433MHz ISM band [0] for the Raspberry Pi. > This shield is called Pi433 [1]. It can be used to communicate between two > Raspberries or to control third party equipment e. g. cheap radio sockets [2]. > The base of this radio shield is a radio module from HopeRf - a rfm69cw-433s2. > > In the beginning, I conrolled the rf69 chip by direct access via SPI, but I > figured out, that several tasks were hard to handle. Especially the following > points were annoying: > * Just one process could open the SPI interface so just one process was > able to access the module > * A simultaneous send and receive was very hard to implement > > Therefore I started to implement a driver. > The drivers features: > * simple access/nice abstraction of spi registers via open, close, > read, write and ioctl > * multiple applications can open > * tx requests are queued, so every app can send a tx request at any time > * first app asking for rx will block other apps, also asking for rx until one > rx > cycle is complete > * rx cycle means listening on the air until something appears > * if an app wants to tx during the driver is waiting in rx cycle, rx will be > shortly interrupted to do the tx task > * for each tx task a seperate configuration of the rf chip (bitrate, > modulation, ...) > can be chosen > * wrtten in modular architecture, allowing to extend for other products with > rf69 chip (e.g. rfm69hcw, ...) or even to support other HopeRf chips with > similar > interface (e. g. rfm12, rfm95, ...) > > In principle the driver was intended to be used by my project (Smarthome-Pi), > only. > But while having all this nice features, I was asked, whether I could offer > the > driver to the community. I never did that before, so I started reading about > submitting drivers and figured out, that there is a lot of work to do, to meet > all > concepts and ideas of complying to kernel code. I spend some days and modified > a lot, but still, a lot of things aren't perfect. > Already known tasks are: > > * coding style does not fully comply with the kernel style guide. > * still TODOs, annotated in the code > * currently the code introduces new IOCTLs. I'm afraid this is a bad idea. > Replace this with another interface, hints are welcome! > > I tested the patch on Raspbian with Kernel v4.12 and applied the patch on > mainline Linux v4.12 > > Is it posibble to integrate into the staging area to ease further development?
Sure, I'm always glad to take new drivers, but can you submit it as just a single patch, and keep it self-contained (i.e. nothing outside of drivers/staging/YOUR_DRIVER/)? thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
