On 3/22/24 11:07, Daniel Golle wrote:
On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 3/21/24 12:33, Daniel Golle wrote:
enum {
GENHD_FL_REMOVABLE = 1 << 0,
GENHD_FL_HIDDEN = 1 << 1,
GENHD_FL_NO_PART = 1 << 2,
+ GENHD_FL_NVMEM = 1 << 3,
};
What would break if this flag wouldn't exist?
As both, MTD and UBI already act as NVMEM providers themselves, once
the user creates a ubiblock device or got CONFIG_MTD_BLOCK=y set in their
kernel configuration, we would run into problems because both, the block
layer as well as MTD or UBI would try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
device tree node.
Why would both MTD and UBI try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
device tree node? Why can't this patch series be implemented such that
a partition UUID occurs in the device tree and such that other code
scans for that partition UUID?
Thanks,
Bart.
