On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 14:37:37 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 21/08/18 14:34, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 21/08/18 12:31, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> * struct nvmem_config - NVMEM device configuration
> >>> @@ -58,6 +62,7 @@ struct nvmem_config {
> >>> bool root_only;
> >>> nvmem_reg_read_t reg_read;
> >>> nvmem_reg_write_t reg_write;
> >>> + nvmem_match_t match;
> >>> int size;
> >>> int word_size;
> >>> int stride;
> >>>
> >> That might work if nvmem cells are defined directly under the mtdnode.
> > Layout should not matter! which is the purpose of this callback.
> >
> > The only purpose of this callback is to tell nvmem core that the
> > node(nvmem cell) belongs to that provider or not, if it is then we
> > successfully found the provider. Its up to the provider on which layout
> > it describes nvmem cells. Additionally the provider can add additional
> > sanity checks in this match function to ensure that cell is correctly
> > represented.
> >
> >
> >> If we go for this approach, I'd recommend replacing this ->match() hook
> >> by ->is_nvmem_cell() and pass it the cell node instead of the nvmem
> >> node, because what we're really after here is knowing which subnode is
> >> an nvmem cell and which subnode is not.
> >
> > I agree on passing cell node instead of its parent. Regarding basic
> > validating if its nvmem cell or not, we can check compatible string in
> > nvmem core if we decide to use "nvmem-cell" compatible.
> >
> > Also just in case if you missed this, nvmem would not iterate the
> Sorry !! i hit send button too quickly I guess.
>
> What I meant to say here, is that nvmem core would not iterate the
> provider node in any case.
>
> Only time it looks at the cell node is when a consumer requests for the
> cell.
I did miss that, indeed. Thanks for the heads up.
So, the "old partitions being considered as nvmem cells" is not really
a problem, because those parts shouldn't be referenced.
This leaves us with the config->force_compat_check topic, which I'd
like to have to ensure that nvmem cells under MTD nodes actually have
compatible = "nvmem-cell" and prevent people from inadvertently
omitting this prop.
And of course, we need Rob's approval on this new binding :-).
