Re: [PATCH 3/8] block: add new genhd flag GENHD_FL_NVMEM

[Bart Van Assche]

On 3/22/24 11:07, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 10:49:48AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On 3/21/24 12:33, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > >    enum {
> > >    	GENHD_FL_REMOVABLE			= 1 << 0,
> > >    	GENHD_FL_HIDDEN				= 1 << 1,
> > >    	GENHD_FL_NO_PART			= 1 << 2,
> > > +	GENHD_FL_NVMEM				= 1 << 3,
> > >    };
> >
> > What would break if this flag wouldn't exist?
>
> As both, MTD and UBI already act as NVMEM providers themselves, once
> the user creates a ubiblock device or got CONFIG_MTD_BLOCK=y set in their
> kernel configuration, we would run into problems because both, the block
> layer as well as MTD or UBI would try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
> device tree node.

Why would both MTD and UBI try to be an NVMEM provider for the same
device tree node? Why can't this patch series be implemented such that
a partition UUID occurs in the device tree and such that other code
scans for that partition UUID?

Thanks,

Bart.