Hi Srinivas, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:53:07 +0000: > On 09/03/2023 10:32, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Srinivas, > > > > srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:12:24 +0000: > > > >> On 22/02/2023 17:22, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > >>> @@ -1791,11 +1792,15 @@ ssize_t nvmem_device_cell_read(struct nvmem_device *nvmem, > >>> if (!nvmem) > >>> return -EINVAL; > >>> > + /* Cells with read_post_process hook may realloc buffer we can't allow here */ > >>> + if (info->read_post_process) > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >> This should probably go in 1/4 patch. Other than that series looks good to me. > > > > FYI patch 1/4 is also carried by the nvmem-layouts series, so it's > > probably best to keep these 2 patches separated to simplify the merging. > that is intermediate thing, but Ideally this change belongs to 1/4 patch, so once I apply these patches then we can always rebase layout series on top of nvmem-next Well, I still don't see the need for this patch because we have no use for it *after* the introduction of layouts. Yes in some cases changing the size of a cell might maybe be needed, but right now the use case is to provide a MAC address, we know beforehand the size of the cell, so there is no need, currently, for this hack. Whatever. If you want it, just merge it. But *please*, I would like to see these layouts in, so what's the plan? Thanks, Miquèl
