[PATCH 2/4] nvmem: core: allow nvmem_cell_post_process_t callbacks to adjust buffer
srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org
Thu Mar 9 12:44:10 CET 2023
On 09/03/2023 11:23, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
> srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:53:07 +0000:
>> On 09/03/2023 10:32, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> Hi Srinivas,
>>> srinivas.kandagatla at linaro.org wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:12:24 +0000:
>>>> On 22/02/2023 17:22, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1791,11 +1792,15 @@ ssize_t nvmem_device_cell_read(struct nvmem_device *nvmem,
>>>>> if (!nvmem)
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> > + /* Cells with read_post_process hook may realloc buffer we can't allow here */
>>>>> + if (info->read_post_process)
>>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> This should probably go in 1/4 patch. Other than that series looks good to me.
>>> FYI patch 1/4 is also carried by the nvmem-layouts series, so it's
>>> probably best to keep these 2 patches separated to simplify the merging.
>> that is intermediate thing, but Ideally this change belongs to 1/4 patch, so once I apply these patches then we can always rebase layout series on top of nvmem-next
> Well, I still don't see the need for this patch because we have no use
> for it *after* the introduction of layouts. Yes in some cases changing
> the size of a cell might maybe be needed, but right now the use case is
> to provide a MAC address, we know beforehand the size of the cell, so
> there is no need, currently, for this hack.
Am confused, should I ignore this series ?
> Whatever. If you want it, just merge it. But *please*, I would like
> to see these layouts in, so what's the plan?
Am on it, you sent v3 just 24hrs ago :-)
More information about the U-Boot