On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 00:53:27 +0200
Alban [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 18:46:09 +0200
Boris Brezillon [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 13:31:06 +0200
Alban [off-list ref] wrote:
  

quoted

On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 18:27:20 +0200
Boris Brezillon [off-list ref] wrote:
    

quoted

Hi Bartosz,

On Fri, 10 Aug 2018 10:05:03 +0200
Bartosz Golaszewski [off-list ref] wrote:
      

quoted

From: Alban Bedel <albeu@free.fr>

Allow drivers that use the nvmem API to read data stored on MTD devices.
For this the mtd devices are registered as read-only NVMEM providers.

Signed-off-by: Alban Bedel <albeu@free.fr>
[Bartosz:
  - use the managed variant of nvmem_register(),
  - set the nvmem name]
Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <redacted>        

What happened to the 2 other patches of Alban's series? I'd really
like the DT case to be handled/agreed on in the same patchset, but
IIRC, Alban and Srinivas disagreed on how this should be represented.
I hope this time we'll come to an agreement, because the MTD <-> NVMEM
glue has been floating around for quite some time...      

These other patches were to fix what I consider a fundamental flaw in
the generic NVMEM bindings, however we couldn't agree on this point.
Bartosz later contacted me to take over this series and I suggested to
just change the MTD NVMEM binding to use a compatible string on the
NVMEM cells as an alternative solution to fix the clash with the old
style MTD partition.

However all this has no impact on the code needed to add NVMEM support
to MTD, so the above patch didn't change at all.    

It does have an impact on the supported binding though.
nvmem->dev.of_node is automatically assigned to mtd->dev.of_node, which
means people will be able to define their NVMEM cells directly under
the MTD device and reference them from other nodes (even if it's not
documented), and as you said, it conflict with the old MTD partition
bindings. So we'd better agree on this binding before merging this
patch.  

Unless the nvmem cell node has a compatible string, then it won't be
considered as a partition by the MTD code. That is were the clash is,
both bindings allow free named child nodes without a compatible string.

Except the current nvmem cells parsing code does not enforce that, and
existing DTs rely on this behavior, so we're screwed. Or are you
suggesting to add a new "bool check_cells_compat;" field to
nvmem_config?

quoted

I see several options:

1/ provide a way to tell the NVMEM framework not to use parent->of_node
   even if it's != NULL. This way we really don't support defining
   NVMEM cells in the DT, and also don't support referencing the nvmem
   device using a phandle.  

I really don't get what the point of this would be. Make the whole API
useless?

No, just allow Bartosz to get his changes merged without waiting for you
and Srinivas to agree on how to handle the new binding. As I said
earlier, this mtd <-> nvmem stuff has been around for quite some time,
and instead of trying to find an approach that makes everyone happy, you
decided to let the patchset die.

quoted

2/ define a new binding where all nvmem-cells are placed in an
   "nvmem" subnode (just like we have this "partitions" subnode for
   partitions), and then add a config->of_node field so that the
   nvmem provider can explicitly specify the DT node representing the
   nvmem device. We'll also need to set this field to ERR_PTR(-ENOENT)
   in case this node does not exist so that the nvmem framework knows
   that it should not assign nvmem->dev.of_node to parent->of_node  

This is not good. First the NVMEM device is only a virtual concept of
the Linux kernel, it has no place in the DT.

nvmem-cells is a virtual concept too, still, you define them in the DT.

Secondly the NVMEM
provider (here the MTD device) then has to manually parse its DT node to
find this subnode, pass it to the NVMEM framework to later again
resolve it back to the MTD device.

We don't resolve it back to the MTD device, because the MTD device is
just the parent of the nvmem device.

Not very complex but still a lot of
useless code, just registering the MTD device is a lot simpler and much
more inline with most other kernel API that register a "service"
available from a device.

I'm not a big fan of this option either, but I thought I had to propose
it.

quoted

3/ only declare partitions as nvmem providers. This would solve the
   problem we have with partitions defined in the DT since
   defining sub-partitions in the DT is not (yet?) supported and
   partition nodes are supposed to be leaf nodes. Still, I'm not a big
   fan of this solution because it will prevent us from supporting
   sub-partitions if we ever want/need to.  

That sound like a poor workaround.

Yes, that's a workaround. And the reason I propose it, is, again,
because I don't want to block Bartosz.

Remember that this problem could
appear with any device that has a binding that use child nodes.

I'm talking about partitions, and you're talking about mtd devices.
Right now partitions don't have subnodes, and if we define that
partition subnodes should describe nvmem-cells, then it becomes part of
the official binding. So, no, the problem you mention does not (yet)
exist.

quoted

4/ Add a ->of_xlate() hook that would be called if present by the
   framework instead of using the default parsing we have right now.  

That is a bit cleaner, but I don't think it would be worse the
complexity.

But it's way more flexible than putting everything in the nvmem
framework. BTW, did you notice that nvmem-cells parsing does not work
with flashes bigger than 4GB, because the framework assumes
#address-cells and #size-cells are always 1. That's probably something
we'll have to fix for the MTD case.

Furthermore xlate functions are more about converting
from hardware parameters to internal kernel representation than to hide
extra DT parsing.

Hm, how is that different? ->of_xlate() is just a way for drivers to
have their own DT representation, which is exactly what we want here.

quoted

5/ Tell the nvmem framework the name of the subnode containing nvmem
   cell definitions (if NULL that means cells are directly defined
   under the nvmem provider node). We would set it to "nvmem-cells" (or
   whatever you like) for the MTD case.  

If so please match on compatible and not on the node name.

If you like.

6/ Extend the current NVMEM cell lookup to check if the parent node of
the cell has a compatible string set to "nvmem-cells". If it doesn't it
mean we have the current binding and this node is the NVMEM device. If
it does the device node is just the next parent. This is trivial to
implement (literally 2 lines of code) and cover all the cases currently
known.

Except Srinivas was not happy with this solution, and this stalled the
discussion. I'm trying to find other options and you keep rejecting all
of them to come back to this one.

7/ Just add a compatible string to the nvmem cell. No code change is
needed,

That's not true!!! What forces people to add this compatible in their
DT? Nothing. I'll tell you what will happen: people will start defining
their nvmem cells directly under the MTD node because that *works*, and
even if the binding is not documented and we consider it invalid, we'll
be stuck supporting it forever. As said above, the very reason for
option #1 to exist is to give you and Srinivas some more time to sort
this out, while unblocking Bartosz in the meantime.

however as the nvmem cells have an address space (the offset in
byte in the storage) it might still clash with another address space
used by the main device biding (for example a number of child
functions).

quoted

There are probably other options (some were proposed by Alban and
Srinivas already), but I'd like to get this sorted out before we merge
this patch.

Alban, Srinivas, any opinion?  

My preference goes to 6/ as it is trivial to implement, solves all
known shortcomings and is backward compatible with the current binding.
All other solutions have limitations and/or require too complex
implementations compared to what they try to solve.

So we're back to square 1, and you're again blocking everything because
you refuse to consider other options.

There's obviously nothing more I can do to help, and that's unfortunate
because other people are waiting for this feature.

Regards,

Boris