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  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:   Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:37:37 +0100
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <>
To:     Boris Brezillon <>
Cc:     Alban <>, Bartosz Golaszewski <>,
        Jonathan Corbet <>, Sekhar Nori <>,
        Kevin Hilman <>,
        Russell King <>,
        Arnd Bergmann <>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <>,
        David Woodhouse <>,
        Brian Norris <>,
        Marek Vasut <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        Grygorii Strashko <>,
        "David S . Miller" <>,
        Naren <>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <>,
        Andrew Morton <>,
        Lukas Wunner <>,
        Dan Carpenter <>,
        Florian Fainelli <>,
        Ivan Khoronzhuk <>,
        Sven Van Asbroeck <>,
        Paolo Abeni <>, Rob Herring <>,
        David Lechner <>,
        Andrew Lunn <>,,,,,,,,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the
 nvmem API

On 21/08/18 14:34, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> On 21/08/18 12:31, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>     * struct nvmem_config - NVMEM device configuration
>>> @@ -58,6 +62,7 @@ struct nvmem_config {
>>>           bool                    root_only;
>>>           nvmem_reg_read_t        reg_read;
>>>           nvmem_reg_write_t       reg_write;
>>> +       nvmem_match_t           match;
>>>           int     size;
>>>           int     word_size;
>>>           int     stride;
>> That might work if nvmem cells are defined directly under the mtdnode.
> Layout should not matter! which is the purpose of this callback.
> The only purpose of this callback is to tell nvmem core that the 
> node(nvmem cell) belongs to that provider or not, if it is then we 
> successfully found the provider. Its up to the provider on which layout 
> it describes nvmem cells. Additionally the provider can add additional 
> sanity checks in this match function to ensure that cell is correctly 
> represented.
>> If we go for this approach, I'd recommend replacing this ->match() hook
>> by ->is_nvmem_cell() and pass it the cell node instead of the nvmem
>> node, because what we're really after here is knowing which subnode is
>> an nvmem cell and which subnode is not.
> I agree on passing cell node instead of its parent. Regarding basic 
> validating if its nvmem cell or not, we can check compatible string in 
> nvmem core if we decide to use "nvmem-cell" compatible.
> Also just in case if you missed this, nvmem would not iterate the
Sorry !! i hit send button too quickly I guess.

What I meant to say here, is that nvmem core would not iterate the 
provider node in any case.

Only time it looks at the cell node is when a consumer requests for the 


Powered by blists - more mailing lists