[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023072118-flyable-aspect-060f@gregkh>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 13:10:09 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>, 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>,
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
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] nvmem: add block device NVMEM provider
On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 04:32:49PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> 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?
It does support initrd, but not really udev last I looked.
But it does allow request_firmware() to be called at boot time, so yes,
finding out why that isn't used here would be good.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists