[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d79de840-25cc-0e8e-15e6-3cc2fda2e38b@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 17:30:30 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] nvmem: qfprom: Don't touch certain fuses
On 01/10/2020 17:27, Evan Green wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 7:17 AM Srinivas Kandagatla
> <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Evan,
>>
>> On 29/09/2020 21:58, Evan Green wrote:
>>> Some fuse ranges are protected by the XPU such that the AP cannot
>>> access them. Attempting to do so causes an SError. Use the newly
>>> introduced per-soc compatible string to attach the set of regions
>>> we should not access. Then tiptoe around those regions.
>>>
>>
>> This is a generic feature that can be used by any nvmem provider, can
>> you move this logic to nvmem core instead of having it in qfprom!
>
> Sure! I'd prefer to keep this data in the driver for now rather than
Ofcourse these can come from driver directly based on compatible!
> trying to define DT bindings for the keepout zones. So then I'll pass
> in my keepout array via struct nvmem_config at registration time, and
> then the core can handle the keepout logic instead of qfprom.c.
>
Yes, that is inline with what am thinking of as well!
00srini
> -Evan
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists