[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZLpCscTMc8h16Tyd@ovpn-8-26.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 16:32:49 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>,
Min Li <min15.li@...sung.com>,
Christian Loehle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@...os.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Yeqi Fu <asuk4.q@...il.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ye Bin <yebin10@...wei.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] nvmem: add block device NVMEM provider
On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:01:14PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On embedded devices using an eMMC it is common that one or more (hw/sw)
> partitions on the eMMC are used to store MAC addresses and Wi-Fi
> calibration EEPROM data.
>
> Implement an NVMEM provider backed by block devices as typically the
> NVMEM framework is used to have kernel drivers read and use binary data
> from EEPROMs, efuses, flash memory (MTD), ...
>
> In order to be able to reference hardware partitions on an eMMC, add code
> to bind each hardware partition to a specific firmware subnode.
>
> This series is meant to open the discussion on how exactly the device tree
> schema for block devices and partitions may look like, and even if using
> the block layer to back the NVMEM device is at all the way to go -- to me
> it seemed to be a good solution because it will be reuable e.g. for NVMe.
Just wondering why you don't use request_firmware() in drivers which consume
the data, then the logic can be moved out of kernel, and you needn't to deal
with device tree & block device.
Or Android doesn't support udev and initrd?
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists