Re: [PATCH 2/2] nvmem: core: Expose cells through sysfs

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 12:12:26PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Greg,
> 
> miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 23 May 2023 19:14:02 +0200:
> 
> > Hi Greg,
> > 
> > gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 23 May 2023 17:58:51 +0100:
> > 
> > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 12:02:39PM +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:  
> > > > +/* Cell attributes will be dynamically allocated */
> > > > +static struct attribute_group nvmem_cells_group = {
> > > > +	.name		= "cells",
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > >  static const struct attribute_group *nvmem_dev_groups[] = {
> > > >  	&nvmem_bin_group,
> > > > +	NULL, /* Reserved for exposing cells, if any */    
> > > 
> > > Please don't do this, but rather use the is_visible callback to
> > > determine if it should be shown or not.  
> > 
> > Ah, excellent point. Don't know why I overlooked that member.
> 
> Actually, the .is_visible callback only acts on the files and
> not the directories (created based on the group name).

That is true, I have a non-working patch somewhere around here that will
not create the directory if no files are in that directory, and need to
get that working someday...

> This
> means whether they are visible or not, the attributes must be
> valid, the nvmem core cannot just toggle a boolean value with
> .is_visible because the sysfs core makes a number of checks
> regarding the content of the attributes, without checking if
> they are visible at all.

You can't toggle a value, that's not how is_visible works.  It's a
callback at the creation time, you do know if you should, or should not,
show the files at creation time, right?

If so, all should be fine, just ignore the empty directory, it's fine.
And hopefully one day, it will not be created if there are no files in
it.  If I can ever get that patch working...

> I can however expose the "cells" bin group by default by having
> it listed in the static bin_attribute list and discard it by
> overwriting the list member with NULL (ie. the opposite of the current
> solution).

Ick, no, please don't do that.  attribute lists should be able to be put
into read-only memory, and are not set up to be dynamically messed with
like this at all.

thanks,

greg k-h