Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 3 Jan 2023 15:51:31 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v5 00/21] nvmem: core: introduce NVMEM layouts | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> |
| |
Hi Miquel,
On 03/01/2023 15:39, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Srinivas, > > michael@walle.cc wrote on Tue, 6 Dec 2022 21:07:19 +0100: > >> This is now the third attempt to fetch the MAC addresses from the VPD >> for the Kontron sl28 boards. Previous discussions can be found here: >> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211228142549.1275412-1-michael@walle.cc/ >> >> >> NVMEM cells are typically added by board code or by the devicetree. But >> as the cells get more complex, there is (valid) push back from the >> devicetree maintainers to not put that handling in the devicetree. >> >> Therefore, introduce NVMEM layouts. They operate on the NVMEM device and >> can add cells during runtime. That way it is possible to add more complex >> cells than it is possible right now with the offset/length/bits >> description in the device tree. For example, you can have post processing >> for individual cells (think of endian swapping, or ethernet offset >> handling). >> >> The imx-ocotp driver is the only user of the global post processing hook, >> convert it to nvmem layouts and drop the global post pocessing hook. >> >> For now, the layouts are selected by the device tree. But the idea is >> that also board files or other drivers could set a layout. Although no >> code for that exists yet. >> >> Thanks to Miquel, the device tree bindings are already approved and merged. >> >> NVMEM layouts as modules? >> While possible in principle, it doesn't make any sense because the NVMEM >> core can't be compiled as a module. The layouts needs to be available at >> probe time. (That is also the reason why they get registered with >> subsys_initcall().) So if the NVMEM core would be a module, the layouts >> could be modules, too. > > I believe this series still applies even though -rc1 (and -rc2) are out > now, may we know if you consider merging it anytime soon or if there > are still discrepancies in the implementation you would like to > discuss? Otherwise I would really like to see this laying in -next a > few weeks before being sent out to Linus, just in case.
Thanks for the work!
Lets get some testing in -next.
Applied now,
--srini > > Thanks, > Miquèl
| |