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

[Rafał Miłecki]

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.