Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> | Date | Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:37:37 +0100 |
| |
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
|  |