Hi Rafał, rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:34:50 +0100: > On 2023-03-06 15:29, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Rafał, > > > > rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:23:50 +0100: > > > >> On 2023-03-06 15:18, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> > Hi Rafał, > >> > > >> > rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:57:03 +0100: > >> > > >> >> On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: > >> >> > Hi Michael, > >> >> > > >> >> > michael@xxxxxxxx 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. Yes, that would be ideal. I will produce an immutable branch. Thanks, Miquèl
