Re: [RFC PATCH 2/6] mmc: block: set fwnode of disk devices

[Ulf Hansson]

On Tue, 8 Aug 2023 at 03:02, Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Ulf,
>
> thank you for reviewing and suggesting ways to improve this series!
>
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2023 at 03:48:31PM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 at 00:02, Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Set fwnode of disk devices to 'block', 'boot0' and 'boot1' subnodes of
> > > the mmc-card. This is done in preparation for having the eMMC act as
> > > NVMEM provider.
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't quite understand what you are trying to do here.
> > Maybe you should re-order the patches in the series so it becomes
> > clear why this is needed?
> >
> > Moreover, I don't see any DT docs being updated as a part of the
> > series, which looks like it is needed too. That would also help to
> > understand what you are proposing, I think.
>
> I've prepared a tree on Github which now also includes commits adding
> dt-bindings for block devices and partitions, so they can be referenced
> as nvmem-cells provider.
>
> The dt-schema addition supposedly explaining this specific patch:
>
> https://github.com/dangowrt/linux/commit/b399a758f0e1c444ae9443dc80902a30de54af09
>
> The whole tree:
>
> https://github.com/dangowrt/linux/commits/for-nvmem-next

Thanks for sharing. However, allow people to review, I suggest you
post a new version with the updated DT bindings included.

The point is, we really need confirmation from the DT maintainers -
otherwise this is simply a no go.

>
> Most comments have been addressed, however, I still depend on using
> either a class_interface *or* adding calls to add/remove the NVMEM
> representation of a block device to block/genhd.c as well as
> block/partitions/core.c, simply because afaik there isn't any better
> way for in-kernel users of block devices to be notified about the
> creation or removal of a block device.

Okay, so that needs further discussions then. I will try to chim in.

[...]

Kind regards
Uffe