[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110326024010.GA3130@pulham.picochip.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 02:40:10 +0000
From: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
Cc: Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, 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 10:16:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.
Sounds like a good idea.
> > 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.
OK, well seeing as we're making this generic we may as well reserve a
range of ioctls. I'll reserve a few of them and add OTP_LOCK_AREA for
now.
Jamie
--
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