[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99f07eaa-d072-f391-098e-e6f7a50a1960@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 16:00:54 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: "Ravi Kumar Bokka (Temp)" <rbokka@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Sai Prakash Ranjan <saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org>,
dhavalp@...eaurora.org, mturney@...eaurora.org,
sparate@...eaurora.org, c_rbokka@...eaurora.org,
mkurumel@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v1 2/3] drivers: nvmem: Add driver for QTI qfprom-efuse
support
On 20/05/2020 23:48, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Is this only applicable for corrected address space?
> I guess I was proposing a two dts-node / two drive approach here.
>
> dts node #1:just covers the memory range for accessing the FEC-corrected data
> driver #1: read-only and reads the FEC-corrected data
>
> dts node #2: covers the memory range that's_not_ the FEC-corrected
> memory range.
> driver #2: read-write. reading reads uncorrected data
>
> Does that seem sane?
I see your point but it does not make sense to have two node for same thing.
Isn't the raw address space reads used to for blowing and checking the
fuses if they are blown correctly or not and software usage of these
fuses should only be done from correct address space?
the read interface to user should be always from corrected address space
and write interface should be to raw address space.
--srini
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists