Re: [RFC PATCH v1 0/3] device property: Support MAC address in VPD

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

Sorry for the delay!! For some reason I missed this email thread totally!

On 31/08/18 02:26, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Seems to me that nvmem needs to be extended to allow providers to
> > retrieve and interpret data. Not everything is at some fixed offset and
> > size. Something like this is valid dts:
> >
> > nvmem = <&phandle> "a-string";

There has been some discussion on extending nvmem support to MTD and 
non-DT users in https://patchwork.kernel.org/cover/10562365/

One of the thing which we discussed in this thread is adding compatible 
strings to cells mainly to
1> Differentiate between actual cells and partitions for MTD case.

2> Allow provider specific bindings for each cell, in VPD instance key 
string & value length could be one them.

This means that we would endup adding xlate callback support to the 
nvmem_config.

AFAIU, From consumer side old bindings should still work!

From non-dt or ACPI side these cells can be parsed by the provider 
driver and add it to the nvmem_config.

Does this make sense? Or Did I miss anything obvious ?


> > But that's pretty uncommon (I can't think of a binding that actually
> > uses that). Perhaps the provider has an array of keys defined and the
> > consumer just provides the index.
> In the case of VPD, all keys are 0-terminated strings (there's also a
> length field, but the key is still 0-terminated), so that scheme could
> work. (I'm not sure an indexed provider is extremely relevant right now,
> although it probably could be supported if I expand the of_nvmem
> retrieval to support a generic of_xlate() override anyway.) The
> information represented is almost the same as in my proposal, except that:
> (a) now I have to give the VPD a phandle -- so far, I've avoided that,
>      as it's just an auto-enumerated device underneath the
>      /firmware/coreboot device (see drivers/firmware/google/vpd.c)
> (b) this is no longer directly useful to ACPI systems -- I'm not
>      actually sure how (if at all) nvmem provider/consumer is supposed to
>      work there
>
> But maybe this isn't really that useful to ACPI, and it's sufficient to
> just have fwnode_get_mac_address() call of_get_nvmem_mac_address() when
> we're using DT.
>
> > Or we could do '<key>-nvmem = <&phandle>', but parsing that is a bit
> > more complicated.
> That doesn't seem to have much advantage to me.