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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:	Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:56:48 +0000
From:	Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To:	Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>
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



On 21/03/16 16:12, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
>>> 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?

It does not make sense to have this driver as a separate nvmem provider, 
can you fold it in the nvmem core itself for now.


Thanks,
srini
>
> Thanks,
> Andrey
>