[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinYd+4vtSBmBGHJwbCgFiZttSTtgQaQ0txwoUxt@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:16:48 -0400
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory
On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 20:21, Jamie Iles wrote:
> For the actual ioctl() we should assume byte addressing rather than
> words though and do the conversion in the driver so we can cope with
> devices that don't have 64-bit words and do the locking on a looping
> word-by-word basis.
>
> struct otp_lock_req {
> __u32 start_addr;
> __u32 byte_count;
> };
i would add an ABI field here too so if in the future we want to add
stuff, we can do so without adding new ioctls. like "u16 version; u16
flags;". then in the ioctl, if version isnt 0, we return ENOTSUP. in
the future, we can add flags or bump the version.
> Mike, would this be OK with you if we used a different ioctl() to the
> one bfin-otp is using currently? I notice that it's using the OTPLOCK
> ioctl() from MTD but I think it's using the argument in a different way.
i re-used OTPLOCK because it's exactly the name i wanted and it was
easier than carving out my own namespace, but the args are different.
i can see how people might find this undesirable.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists