Am 21.01.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Radek Polak <[email protected]>: > On Thursday 21 of January 2016 13:05:27 Andreas Kemnade wrote: > > > I must admit that I have never used qtmoko kernels because of that initramfs > > because I do not want to /dev/mmcblk0p1 to be touched by anything > > automatically. Just because power might end at a bad moment and there might > > be no bootable kernel. > > Well i dont think it's the case. The gta04-init mounts only the partition > that you tell it to mount (e.g. via config file, or touch screen) and boots > into it. Just the mount command is done from userspace and can be very nicely > customized compared to "stupid" root kernel option. > > Btw there was talk about "daemon" but daemon is IMO not needed at all, just > single check during init that GPS is powered off.
Yes, there is a difference to a daemon: a daemon runs forever and this runs only once. Unless someone is wrongly handling the gpio. I.e. a process that did crash. > > > Well the problem is solved in some way. It is just about getting the > > solutions accepted. That takes energy and if successful not only solves > > GTA04 stuff but also other solutions. But that is the general problem of > > upstreaming. You have your working solution and then put extra energy into > > it which does often not give anything as reward (in short term). > > Yup understand. But i could understand if the upstreaming is rejected. > Growing general kernel code because of 100 users while there is simple > userspace solution... Well, there is a simple user space solution for a lot of garbage in the kernel... But this is the solution: we need to grow number of users :) > > > > The real problem is e.g. that my Nokia N900 eats 3mA in suspend and > > > lasts 6day, while GTA04 eats 25mA and needs recharging every day. I > > > personally dont care if turning GPS on/off is 10 lines of code in > > > userspace > > > or 40 lines of code in kernel. > > > > Well, I prefer working, standard interfaces. If the general rule is that > > kernel is powering down things which are not used, than I want that. > > Another solution I could life if rfkill can at least do everything. > > Agree that toggling rfkill during init should be easily doable for any > userspace. Yes, but again: we have a working solution that is better. So it is waste of time to think about yet another. BTW: if I remember correctly, some RFKILL solution was also rejected by kernel maintainers, because RFKILL means RF kill but not "turn device on/off". The result is that same that you don#t get data... But it shows how nit-picking it might be to get things into the kernel. Especially if they don't like that you come and disturb their circles... BR, Nikolaus
_______________________________________________ Gta04-owner mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goldelico.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/gta04-owner
