> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Support accessing > controller for i.MX9 > > Hi, > > Am Samstag, 11. Januar 2025, 13:41:58 CET schrieb Peng Fan: > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/2] nvmem: imx-ocotp-ele: Support > accessing > > > controller for i.MX9 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Am Donnerstag, 9. Januar 2025, 04:34:18 CET schrieb Peng Fan: > > > > On Wed, Jan 08, 2025 at 11:15:40AM +0100, Alexander Stein > wrote: > > > > >Hi Peng, > > > > > > > > > >Am Mittwoch, 8. Januar 2025, 08:00:18 CET schrieb Peng Fan > (OSS): > > > > >> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > >> > > > > >> i.MX9 OCOTP supports a specific peripheral or function being > > > fused > > > > >> which means disabled, so > > > > >> - Introduce ocotp_access_gates to be container of efuse gate > > > > >> info > > > > >> - Iterate all nodes to check accessing permission. If not > > > > >> allowed to be accessed, detach the node > > > > >> > > > > >> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx> > > > > >> --- > > > > >> drivers/nvmem/imx-ocotp-ele.c | 172 > > > > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > > >> 1 file changed, 171 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > >> > > > > [....] > > > > >> + > > > > >> + return imx_ele_ocotp_access_control(priv); > > > > > > > > > >In [1] you mentioned devlink should solve the probe order. How > > > does > > > > >this play when the driver is compiled in (e.g. ethernet for NFS > > > > >boot) but this OCOTP driver is just a module? > > > > > > > > OCOTP needs to built in for using devlink. Or the users needs to > > > > be built as module. > > > > > > I don't like this kind of assumption. Would it make more sense to > > > make CONFIG_NVMEM_IMX_OCOTP_ELE as bool instead of tristate? > > > > No. Users could setup their own system with this driver build in or > > built related drivers as modules. > > Sure, but if the kernel locks/fails/panics while accessing peripherals just > because of the kernel config seems at east very unfortunate to me. > How is someone supposed to analyze/debug this? > > > At least for Android GKI, this driver needs to be as module. > > Any particular reason this needs to be a module? Android has a minimal kernel which is controlled by Google. Vendors could only built modules based on Google's Image. Updating this to y in upstream, means we need to change it back to m in NXP downstream android kernel. If you need it built in, you could modify your downstream config, right? Thanks, Peng. > Which means any affected driver needs to be a module as well just > because if a DT reference, no? With no means to know which drivers > are affected, despite checking for the DT references manually? > > Best regards, > Alexander > -- > TQ-Systems GmbH | Mühlstraße 2, Gut Delling | 82229 Seefeld, > Germany Amtsgericht München, HRB 105018 > Geschäftsführer: Detlef Schneider, Rüdiger Stahl, Stefan Schneider > https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2F > www.tq- > group.com%2F&data=05%7C02%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C4f423e5 > af548475e6b0208dd33cc2d1e%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301 > 635%7C0%7C0%7C638723674209718864%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZ > sb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW > 4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=e > qPs5lOuVSiIZYQwwNecUzgIL%2FtWiJP5bjd7b60Ul7A%3D&reserved=0 >
