linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND RFC 3/3] nvmem: Add 'nvmem-composite' driver

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 09:12:29 -0700
From:	Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
To:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	Trent Piepho <tpiepho@...etacorp.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND RFC 3/3] nvmem: Add 'nvmem-composite' driver

>> a-node {
>>           nvmem-cells = <&cell_a &cell_b>, ????;
>>           nvmem-cell-names = "some-data", "more-data";
>> };
>>
> Should have replied you long back :-)

No worries :-)

>>
>> and I want "more-data" to reference only one phandle, how would this be
>> handled?
>>
> yes this would fail.
>
> The device tree compiler would concatenate all the cells and we have no
> means to know where did "more-data" starts.
>
> sounds like composite driver is the way forward.

What's your preference on "separate driver" vs. "part of the NVMEM
framework"? Should I keep it as a separate driver or try to fold it
into NVMEM core?

Thanks,
Andrey