Re: [PATCH v2 06/29] mtd: Add support for reading MTD devices via the nvmem API

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 10:38:13 +0100
Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi Boris/Bartosz,
> 
> On 21/08/18 06:44, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> >>> 4/ Add a ->of_xlate() hook that would be called if present by the
> >>>     framework instead of using the default parsing we have right now.  
> >> That is a bit cleaner, but I don't think it would be worse the
> >> complexity.  
> > But it's way more flexible than putting everything in the nvmem
> > framework. BTW, did you notice that nvmem-cells parsing does not work
> > with flashes bigger than 4GB, because the framework assumes
> > #address-cells and #size-cells are always 1. That's probably something
> > we'll have to fix for the MTD case.
> >   
> 
> I have hacked up some thing on these lines to add a custom match 
> function for nvmem provider and it looks like it can work for mtd case.
> 
> This addresses concern #1 "to ignore of_node from dev pointer passed to 
> nvmem_config" also provides way to do some sanity checks on nvmem cell node.
> In this patch I have just added a simple mtd_nvmem_match() example which 
> will be always true, however we can add checks here to see if the np is 
> actually a nvmem-cells node or something on those lines to enforce the 
> bindings. Please fix and remove this from nvmem-core patch incase you 
> plan to use/test this.
> 
> We still have one open issue of supporting #address-cells and 
> #size-cells in nvmem, which I can look at if you are happy with this 
> approach!
> 
> ----------------------------------->cut<---------------------------------  
> Author: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date:   Tue Aug 21 10:07:24 2018 +0100
> 
>      nvmem: core: add custom match function support
> 
>      Some nvmem providers might not have a simple DT layout, nvmem cells
>      could be part of the unpartioned space or with-in partition or
>      even in sub partition of the provider.
> 
>      Current matching function is expecting that the provider should be
>      immediate parent of the cell, which might not be true for the above
>      cases. So allow a custom match function for such devices which can
>      validate and match the cell as per the provider specific bindings.
> 
>      Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> index a57302eaceb5..33541b18ac30 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/mtdcore.c
> @@ -502,6 +502,19 @@ static int mtd_nvmem_reg_read(void *priv, unsigned 
> int offset,
>          return retlen == bytes ? 0 : -EIO;
>   }
> 
> +static int mtd_nvmem_match(void *priv, struct device *dev,
> +                          struct device_node *np)
> +{
> +       struct mtd_info *mtd = priv;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * Add more checks to make sure device node is inline with
> +        * binding if required
> +        */
> +
> +       return &mtd->dev == dev->parent;
> +}
> +
>   static int mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>   {
>          struct nvmem_config config = { };
> @@ -516,6 +529,7 @@ static int mtd_nvmem_add(struct mtd_info *mtd)
>          config.read_only = true;
>          config.root_only = true;
>          config.priv = mtd;
> +       config.match = mtd_nvmem_match;
> 
>          mtd->nvmem = devm_nvmem_register(&mtd->dev, &config);
>          if (IS_ERR(mtd->nvmem)) {
> diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> index 3a8bf832243d..32bc4e70522c 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ struct nvmem_device {
>          struct device           *base_dev;
>          nvmem_reg_read_t        reg_read;
>          nvmem_reg_write_t       reg_write;
> +       nvmem_match_t           match;
>          void *priv;
>   };
> 
> @@ -265,6 +266,11 @@ static struct bus_type nvmem_bus_type = {
> 
>   static int of_nvmem_match(struct device *dev, void *nvmem_np)
>   {
> +       struct nvmem_device *nvmem = to_nvmem_device(dev);
> +
> +       if (nvmem->match)
> +               return nvmem->match(nvmem->priv, dev, nvmem_np);
> +
>          return dev->of_node == nvmem_np;
>   }
> 
> @@ -482,7 +488,9 @@ struct nvmem_device *nvmem_register(const struct 
> nvmem_config *config)
>          nvmem->priv = config->priv;
>          nvmem->reg_read = config->reg_read;
>          nvmem->reg_write = config->reg_write;
> -       nvmem->dev.of_node = config->dev->of_node;
> +
> +       if (!config->match)
> +               nvmem->dev.of_node = config->dev->of_node;
> 
>          if (config->id == -1 && config->name) {
>                  dev_set_name(&nvmem->dev, "%s", config->name);
> diff --git a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> index 24def6ad09bb..b29059bb406e 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nvmem-provider.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> 
>   #include <linux/err.h>
>   #include <linux/errno.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> 
>   struct nvmem_device;
>   struct nvmem_cell_info;
> @@ -21,6 +22,9 @@ typedef int (*nvmem_reg_read_t)(void *priv, unsigned 
> int offset,
>                                  void *val, size_t bytes);
>   typedef int (*nvmem_reg_write_t)(void *priv, unsigned int offset,
>                                   void *val, size_t bytes);
> +typedef int (*nvmem_match_t)(void *priv, struct device *dev,
> +                            struct device_node *np);
> +
> 
>   /**
>    * 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.
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.

______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/