Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules

[Miquel Raynal]

Hi Rafał,

rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:34:50 +0100:

> On 2023-03-06 15:29, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Rafał,
> > 
> > rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:23:50 +0100:
> >   
> >> On 2023-03-06 15:18, Miquel Raynal wrote:  
> >> > Hi Rafał,
> >> >
> >> > rafal@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:57:03 +0100:
> >> >  
> >> >> On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote:  
> >> >> > Hi Michael,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > michael@xxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:01:34 +0100:
> >> >> >  
> >> >> >> > Miquel Raynal (8):
> >> >> >> >   of: Fix modalias string generation
> >> >> >> >   of: Change of_device_get_modalias() main argument
> >> >> >> >   of: Create an of_device_request_module() receiving an OF node
> >> >> >> >   nvmem: core: Fix error path ordering
> >> >> >> >   nvmem: core: Handle the absence of expected layouts
> >> >> >> >   nvmem: core: Request layout modules loading
> >> >> >> >   nvmem: layouts: sl28vpd: Convert layout driver into a module
> >> >> >> >   nvmem: layouts: onie-tlv: Convert layout driver into a module  
> >> >> >> >> With the fixes series [1] applied:  
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks for the series! Looks good to me. I believe both series can live
> >> >> > in separate tress, any reason why we would like to avoid this? I am > keen
> >> >> > to apply [1] into the mtd tree rather soon.  
> >> >> >> Given past events with nvmem patches I'm against that.
> >> >> >> Let's wait for Srinivas to collect pending patches, let them spend a  
> >> >> moment in linux-next maybe, ask Srinivas to send them to Greg early if
> >> >> he can. That way maybe you can merge Greg's branch (assuming he >> doesn't
> >> >> rebase).  
> >> >
> >> > Just to be on the same page, we're talking about the mtd core fixups to
> >> > handle correctly probe deferrals in the nvmem side.
> >> >
> >> > Applying mtd patches then nvmem patches is totally fine in this order.
> >> > Applying nvmem patches and then mtd patches creates a range of commits
> >> > where some otp devices might have troubles probing if:
> >> > - a layout driver is used
> >> > - the driver is compiled as a module
> >> > - the driver is also not installed in an initramfs
> >> >
> >> > I was actually asking out loud whether we should care about this
> >> > commit range given the unlikelihood that someone would have troubles
> >> > with this while bisecting a linux-next kernel.
> >> >
> >> > So getting an immutable tag from Greg would not help. The opposite
> >> > might make sense though, and involves that I apply [1] to mtd/next
> >> > rather soon anyway, I guess?  
> >> >> The problem IIUC is nvmem.git / for-next containing broken code after  
> >> adding nvmem stuff. That is unless Srinivas takes your patches in some
> >> way. Hopefully not by waiting for 6.4-rc1.  
> > 
> > I don't follow. There will be nothing broken after applying the nvmem
> > patches, at least nothing more than today. I will apply the patches
> > provided by Michael, they fix existing issues, nothing related to the
> > nvmem changes. Just, it is easier to trigger these issues with the
> > nvmem series thanks to the probe deferral situations.
> > 
> > Both series can live on their own. If required I will produce an
> > immutable tag to Greg.  
> 
> OK, it's me how didn't follow then.
> 
> I thought your mtd fixes are needed before applying nvmem stuff.

Yes, that would be ideal. I will produce an immutable branch.

Thanks,
Miquèl