Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] block: implement NVMEM provider

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 11:33:22 +0200, Loic Poulain
<loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2026 at 11:28 AM Loic Poulain
> <loic.poulain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>
> Also we cannot safely return -EPROBE_DEFER from add_disk_final()
> either. The NVMEM registration point is late in the sequence, too much
> has already happened to easily unwind. The easiest is that the NVMEM
> simply won't be available if registration fails, which looks
> acceptable?
>

I'd argue that it's a problem with subsystem code then as unwinding should
work fine no matter the point in the sequence when it's initiated but I guess
this isn't really an issue in your patches.

I suppose we shouldn't typically run into probe deferral here so I'm fine just
ignoring the return value.

Bart