On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 03:02, Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ulf, > > thank you for reviewing and suggesting ways to improve this series! > > On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 00:02, Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Set fwnode of disk devices to 'block', 'boot0' and 'boot1' subnodes of > > > the mmc-card. This is done in preparation for having the eMMC act as > > > NVMEM provider. > > > > Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are trying to do here. > > Maybe you should re-order the patches in the series so it becomes > > clear why this is needed? > > > > Moreover, I don't see any DT docs being updated as a part of the > > series, which looks like it is needed too. That would also help to > > understand what you are proposing, I think. > > I've prepared a tree on Github which now also includes commits adding > dt-bindings for block devices and partitions, so they can be referenced > as nvmem-cells provider. > > The dt-schema addition supposedly explaining this specific patch: > > https://github.com/dangowrt/linux/commit/b399a758f0e1c444ae9443dc80902a30de54af09 > > The whole tree: > > https://github.com/dangowrt/linux/commits/for-nvmem-next Thanks for sharing. However, allow people to review, I suggest you post a new version with the updated DT bindings included. The point is, we really need confirmation from the DT maintainers - otherwise this is simply a no go. > > Most comments have been addressed, however, I still depend on using > either a class_interface *or* adding calls to add/remove the NVMEM > representation of a block device to block/genhd.c as well as > block/partitions/core.c, simply because afaik there isn't any better > way for in-kernel users of block devices to be notified about the > creation or removal of a block device. Okay, so that needs further discussions then. I will try to chim in. [...] Kind regards Uffe
