Re: [PATCH v2 11/21] nvmem: core: handle the absence of expected layouts

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 10/03/2023 10:45, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
>
> srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote on Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:30:14 +0000:
>
> > On 07/03/2023 16:53, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > Make nvmem_layout_get() return -EPROBE_DEFER while the expected layout
> > > is not available. This condition cannot be triggered today as nvmem
> > > layout drivers are initialed as part of an early init call, but soon
> > > these drivers will be converted into modules and be initialized with a
> > > standard priority, so the unavailability of the drivers might become a
> > > reality that must be taken care of.
> > >
> > > Let's anticipate this by telling the caller the layout might not yet be
> > > available. A probe deferral is requested in this case.
> > >
> > > Please note this does not affect any nvmem device not using layouts,
> > > because an early check against the "nvmem-layout" container presence
> > > will return NULL in this case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Tested-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    drivers/nvmem/core.c | 10 +++++++++-
> > >    1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/nvmem/core.c b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> > > index b9be1faeb7be..51fd792b8d70 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/nvmem/core.c
> > > @@ -755,7 +755,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvmem_layout_unregister);
> > >    static struct nvmem_layout *nvmem_layout_get(struct nvmem_device *nvmem)
> > >    {
> >
> > Any reason why this is not part of 10/21?
>
> Yes, I would like to credit everybody for his work, so Michael for the
> base implementation and myself for the module sitaution handling,
> arguing this is two different features. May we keep these separated?

Thanks for clarifying this, that should be fine.

--srini