Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:34:50 +0100 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules |
| |
On 2023-03-06 15:29, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Rafał, > > rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:23:50 +0100: > >> On 2023-03-06 15:18, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> > Hi Rafał, >> > >> > rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:57:03 +0100: >> > >> >> On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> >> > Hi Michael, >> >> > >> >> > michael@walle.cc wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:01:34 +0100: >> >> > >> >> >> > Miquel Raynal (8): >> >> >> > of: Fix modalias string generation >> >> >> > of: Change of_device_get_modalias() main argument >> >> >> > of: Create an of_device_request_module() receiving an OF node >> >> >> > nvmem: core: Fix error path ordering >> >> >> > nvmem: core: Handle the absence of expected layouts >> >> >> > nvmem: core: Request layout modules loading >> >> >> > nvmem: layouts: sl28vpd: Convert layout driver into a module >> >> >> > nvmem: layouts: onie-tlv: Convert layout driver into a module >> >> >> >> With the fixes series [1] applied: >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for the series! Looks good to me. I believe both series can live >> >> > in separate tress, any reason why we would like to avoid this? I am > keen >> >> > to apply [1] into the mtd tree rather soon. >> >> >> Given past events with nvmem patches I'm against that. >> >> >> Let's wait for Srinivas to collect pending patches, let them spend a >> >> moment in linux-next maybe, ask Srinivas to send them to Greg early if >> >> he can. That way maybe you can merge Greg's branch (assuming he >> doesn't >> >> rebase). >> > >> > Just to be on the same page, we're talking about the mtd core fixups to >> > handle correctly probe deferrals in the nvmem side. >> > >> > Applying mtd patches then nvmem patches is totally fine in this order. >> > Applying nvmem patches and then mtd patches creates a range of commits >> > where some otp devices might have troubles probing if: >> > - a layout driver is used >> > - the driver is compiled as a module >> > - the driver is also not installed in an initramfs >> > >> > I was actually asking out loud whether we should care about this >> > commit range given the unlikelihood that someone would have troubles >> > with this while bisecting a linux-next kernel. >> > >> > So getting an immutable tag from Greg would not help. The opposite >> > might make sense though, and involves that I apply [1] to mtd/next >> > rather soon anyway, I guess? >> >> The problem IIUC is nvmem.git / for-next containing broken code after >> adding nvmem stuff. That is unless Srinivas takes your patches in some >> way. Hopefully not by waiting for 6.4-rc1. > > I don't follow. There will be nothing broken after applying the nvmem > patches, at least nothing more than today. I will apply the patches > provided by Michael, they fix existing issues, nothing related to the > nvmem changes. Just, it is easier to trigger these issues with the > nvmem series thanks to the probe deferral situations. > > Both series can live on their own. If required I will produce an > immutable tag to Greg.
OK, it's me how didn't follow then.
I thought your mtd fixes are needed before applying nvmem stuff.
It sounds OK then.
| |