[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e4ea4614-4673-020c-641d-30c94e7b761a@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:37:37 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...tlin.com>
Cc: Alban <albeu@...e.fr>, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Naren <naren.kernel@...il.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>,
Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@...x.com>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
David Lechner <david@...hnology.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the
nvmem API
On 21/08/18 14:34, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
>
>
> On 21/08/18 12:31, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> * struct nvmem_config - NVMEM device configuration
>>> @@ -58,6 +62,7 @@ struct nvmem_config {
>>> bool root_only;
>>> nvmem_reg_read_t reg_read;
>>> nvmem_reg_write_t reg_write;
>>> + nvmem_match_t match;
>>> int size;
>>> int word_size;
>>> int stride;
>>>
>> That might work if nvmem cells are defined directly under the mtdnode.
> Layout should not matter! which is the purpose of this callback.
>
> The only purpose of this callback is to tell nvmem core that the
> node(nvmem cell) belongs to that provider or not, if it is then we
> successfully found the provider. Its up to the provider on which layout
> it describes nvmem cells. Additionally the provider can add additional
> sanity checks in this match function to ensure that cell is correctly
> represented.
>
>
>> If we go for this approach, I'd recommend replacing this ->match() hook
>> by ->is_nvmem_cell() and pass it the cell node instead of the nvmem
>> node, because what we're really after here is knowing which subnode is
>> an nvmem cell and which subnode is not.
>
> I agree on passing cell node instead of its parent. Regarding basic
> validating if its nvmem cell or not, we can check compatible string in
> nvmem core if we decide to use "nvmem-cell" compatible.
>
> Also just in case if you missed this, nvmem would not iterate the
Sorry !! i hit send button too quickly I guess.
What I meant to say here, is that nvmem core would not iterate the
provider node in any case.
Only time it looks at the cell node is when a consumer requests for the
cell.
--srini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists