[Letux-kernel] Request for tasks

[Andrey Utkin]

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 01:30:56PM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Well, the key problem of the LKML review process is that you have something
> working and well thought - but one of the thoughts is not accepted or understood
> by maintainers. This means turning the code upside down and expand what had
> been clean :)

Well, LKML review requires huge amount of stubbornness (just as all
driver work :) ). I know it because I'm now mainlining tw5864 driver for
another job :)

In my experience maintainers are saint guys because they make most of
work on evolution of API (and collateral changes across all drivers),
which makes drivers more and more slim.


> But there are also work packages for new drivers where nobody did take care so far.
> We have these sensor chips:
> * BMC160
> * BMG150
> * or BNO055
> * BME280
> 
> For some we don't have any or good enough (iio) drivers. Bosch Sensortec has some
> libraries. And there are drivers for similar chips. So that could be a topic where you can
> start from scratch and proceed in your own pace. And they are not too complex to start with.

All of them at board, or some are substitusions for others? Please
explain the "or" part.
Please point me to all the datasheets once they become available for
download.

Are these chips available on any devboards anybody is having?

BTW what about some ready solution for sharing NDA files privately, for
example, private Bitbucket git repo? It's free to set up and you can
share access to persons you want.

> Another (almost) unprocessed task is the eMMC/µSD-Switch which IMHO should get a
> driver that can switch between both on demand. My work so far is just a bindings document
> to describe how *I* think it could be integrated into the DT. This is
> 
> issue http://projects.goldelico.com/p/gta04-kernel/issues/698/
> and branch http://git.goldelico.com/?p=gta04-kernel.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/work/hns/mmc/txs02612

Hm. Does it mean that eMMC and mSD cannot be accessed at the same time?
(Which feel sad).
I'm not keen on devicetree stuff, but just a dumb proposal - what about
defining both, and then let the requests to blocked device (which is
unavailable at the moment) return EIO or EAGAIN. If there's such thing
as handler procedure, of course :)