linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <bdb9e524ac03656683a1f2678d05d88c@walle.cc>
Date:   Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:11:30 +0100
From:   Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>
To:     Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Cc:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
        Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Robert Marko <robert.marko@...tura.hr>,
        Luka Perkov <luka.perkov@...tura.hr>,
        Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules

Am 2023-03-06 15:06, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
> On 2023-03-06 15:03, Michael Walle wrote:
>> Am 2023-03-06 14:57, schrieb Rafał Miłecki:
>>> On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>> 
>>>> michael@...le.cc wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:01:34 +0100:
>>>> 
>>>>> > Miquel Raynal (8):
>>>>> >   of: Fix modalias string generation
>>>>> >   of: Change of_device_get_modalias() main argument
>>>>> >   of: Create an of_device_request_module() receiving an OF node
>>>>> >   nvmem: core: Fix error path ordering
>>>>> >   nvmem: core: Handle the absence of expected layouts
>>>>> >   nvmem: core: Request layout modules loading
>>>>> >   nvmem: layouts: sl28vpd: Convert layout driver into a module
>>>>> >   nvmem: layouts: onie-tlv: Convert layout driver into a module
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the fixes series [1] applied:
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the series! Looks good to me. I believe both series can 
>>>> live
>>>> in separate tress, any reason why we would like to avoid this? I am 
>>>> keen
>>>> to apply [1] into the mtd tree rather soon.
>>> 
>>> Given past events with nvmem patches I'm against that.
>>> 
>>> Let's wait for Srinivas to collect pending patches, let them spend a
>>> moment in linux-next maybe, ask Srinivas to send them to Greg early 
>>> if
>>> he can. That way maybe you can merge Greg's branch (assuming he 
>>> doesn't
>>> rebase).
>> 
>> Mh? None of these fixes have anything to do with nvmem (except maybe 
>> patch
>> 4/4). The bugs were just discovered while I was testing this series. 
>> But
>> OTOH they are kind of a prerequisite for this series. So what are you
>> suggesting here?
> 
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are commenting on linked mtd series.
> I thought you want to take nvmem patches series over mtd tree ;) My
> bad.

So was Miquel I think ;). But maybe it will make sense to provide a 
stable
tag/branch to srinivas so if someone is using the nvmem-next branch it 
will
work. Although I doubt there are many users of the spi-nor otp stuff.

-michael