Hi Richard, On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 11:12:54PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote: > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- > > Von: "Miquel Raynal" <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > An: "Daniel Golle" <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > CC: "richard" <richard@xxxxxx>, "Vignesh Raghavendra" <vigneshr@xxxxxx>, "Rob Herring" <robh+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Krzysztof > > Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mtd" > > <linux-mtd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "devicetree" <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel" > > <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Gesendet: Montag, 19. Februar 2024 12:01:56 > > Betreff: Re: [PATCH v7 7/7] mtd: ubi: provide NVMEM layer over UBI volumes > > > Hi Daniel, > > > > daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 19 Dec 2023 02:33:48 +0000: > > > >> In an ideal world we would like UBI to be used where ever possible on a > >> NAND chip. And with UBI support in ARM Trusted Firmware and U-Boot it > >> is possible to achieve an (almost-)all-UBI flash layout. Hence the need > >> for a way to also use UBI volumes to store board-level constants, such > >> as MAC addresses and calibration data of wireless interfaces. > >> > >> Add UBI volume NVMEM driver module exposing UBI volumes as NVMEM > >> providers. Allow UBI devices to have a "volumes" firmware subnode with > >> volumes which may be compatible with "nvmem-cells". > >> Access to UBI volumes via the NVMEM interface at this point is > >> read-only, and it is slow, opening and closing the UBI volume for each > >> access due to limitations of the NVMEM provider API. > > > > I don't feel qualified enough to review the other patches, however this > > one looks good to me. > > Finally(!), I had enough time to look. > Thanks for addressing all my comments form the previous series. > Patches applied. It's an enourmous coicident that you are writing just now that I found a sizeof(int)-related problem which triggers a compiler warning when building the UBI NVMEM provider on 32-bit platforms. I was just about to prepare an updated series. Literally in this minute. Should I still send the whole updates series or only the final patch (as the necessary change is there) or a follow-up patch fixing the original patch? > > I have only one tiny request, can you share the lockdep spalt > you encountered in ubi_notify_add() regarding mtd_table_mutex > and ubi_devices_mutex? The solutions looks okay to me, but > if you have more details that would be great. I will setup a test build to reproduce the original warning and let you know shortly. Cheers Daniel
