[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <791ea3b6-c326-9e71-e23b-93206e305c85@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2022 14:37:41 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Michael Walle <michael@...le.cc>,
Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>
Cc: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>, Li Yang <leoyang.li@....com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/14] nvmem: core: introduce NVMEM layouts
Thanks Michael for the work.
On 29/08/2022 09:22, Michael Walle wrote:
>
>> One thing I believe you need to handle is replacing "cell_post_process"
>> callback with your layout thing.
>>
>> I find it confusing to have
>> 1. cell_post_process() CB at NVMEM device level
>> 2. post_process() CB at NVMEM cell level
>
> What is wrong with having a callback at both levels?
we should converge this tbh, its more than one code paths to deal with
similar usecases.
I have put down some thoughts in "[PATCH v1 06/14] nvmem: core:
introduce NVMEM layouts" and "[PATCH v1 07/14] nvmem: core: add per-cell
post processing" review.
--srini
>
> Granted, in this particular case (it is just used at one place), I still
> think that it is the wrong approach to add this transformation in the
> driver (in this particular case). The driver is supposed to give you
> access to the SoC's fuse box, but it will magically change the content
> of a cell if the nvmem consumer named this cell "mac-address" (which
> you also found confusing the last time and I do too!).
>
> The driver itself doesn't add any cells on its own, so I cannot register
> a .post_process hook there. Therefore, you'd need that post_process hook
> on every cell, which is equivalent to have a post_process hook at
> device level.
>
> Unless you have a better idea. I'll leave that up to NXP to fix that (or
> leave it like that).
>
> -michael
Powered by blists - more mailing lists