Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

[Mike Frysinger]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 20:21, Jamie Iles wrote:
> For the actual ioctl() we should assume byte addressing rather than
> words though and do the conversion in the driver so we can cope with
> devices that don't have 64-bit words and do the locking on a looping
> word-by-word basis.
>
> Â Â Â Âstruct otp_lock_req {
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â__u32 Â start_addr;
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â__u32 Â byte_count;
> Â Â Â Â};

i would add an ABI field here too so if in the future we want to add
stuff, we can do so without adding new ioctls.  like "u16 version; u16
flags;".  then in the ioctl, if version isnt 0, we return ENOTSUP.  in
the future, we can add flags or bump the version.

> Mike, would this be OK with you if we used a different ioctl() to the
> one bfin-otp is using currently? ÂI notice that it's using the OTPLOCK
> ioctl() from MTD but I think it's using the argument in a different way.

i re-used OTPLOCK because it's exactly the name i wanted and it was
easier than carving out my own namespace, but the args are different.
i can see how people might find this undesirable.
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/