linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] doc: bindings: Add bindings documentation for mtd nvmem

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:   Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:37:44 +0100
From:   Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:     Alban <albeu@...e.fr>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] doc: bindings: Add bindings documentation for mtd
 nvmem

On Fri, 3 Mar 2017 13:17:05 +0100
Alban <albeu@...e.fr> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Mar 2017 21:22:20 +0100
> Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu,  2 Mar 2017 20:50:21 +0100
> > Alban <albeu@...e.fr> wrote:
> >   
> > > Add the binding to expose MTD partitions as nvmem providers.    
> > 
> > Looks good. Maybe you should take the case you describe in your
> > cover-letter into account and add an extra layer: add an nvmem sub-node
> > containing the nvmem cells, so that you can expose nvmem cells directly
> > under master MTD devices (and not only partitions).   
> 
> I think that would be the better solution. This can be done
> independently, once we agree on a binding we just have to fix
> of_nvmem_cell_get(). My suggestion would be to have the new binding
> looking like this:
> 
> nvmem-device@10 {
> 	...
> 	nvmem-provider;
> 	nvmem-cells {
> 		compatible = "nvmem-cells";
> 		#address-cells = <1>;
> 		#size-cells = <1>;
> 
> 		nvmem-cell@100 {
> 			label = "mac-address";
> 			reg = <0x100 0x200>;
> 		}
> 
> 		...
> 	}
> }
> 
> I would also suggest making the "nvmem-provider" property mandatory
> to indicate that the device provides this capability. Up to now all
> nvmem providers only support this API but I think there might be more
> multi function devices in the future.

If you enforce the name of the child node (here nvmem-cells), you don't
need this extra nvmem-provider property. Am I missing something?