lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Questions about NVMEM
From
Date


On 11/09/17 05:44, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> Hi Srinivas,
>
>
> I have 3 questions about the nvmem sybsystem.
>
> Please correct me if something is missing from my thought.
>
>
>
>
> (Q1) How to allocate struct nvmem_config?
>
> I see 3 ways in allocating struct nvmem_config.
> What is a good / bad practice?
>
>
> (A) Allocate statically in .data section
>
> bcm-ocotp.c
> imx-ocotp.c
> lpc18xx_eeprom.c
> lpc18xx_otp.c
> mxs-octop.c
> qfprom.c
> rockchip-efuse.c
> sunxi_sid
> vf610-ocotp.c
> meson-efuse.c
>
> (B) devm_kzalloc()
>
> imx-iim.c
> mtk-efuse.c
> drivers/misc/eeprom/at24.c
>
> (C) Stack
>
> drivers/thunderbolt/switch.c
>
>
>
> I think (A) is safe only when we know the system has
> just one instance of the device.
> (A) should not be used if two or more instances exist.
> Is this correct?

That is correct.

>
>
> I think (B) is wasting memory because nvmem_register()
> copies all members of nvmem_config to nvmem_device.
> nvmem_config is never dereferenced after nvmem_register() finished.
> I do not see much sense to keep it until the driver is detached.
>
I agree.

>
>
> (C) looks reasonable because nvmem_config is pretty small.
> (sizeof(struct nvmem_config) = 104 byte on 64bit systems)
>
Yep, thats much better indeed!


> Several subsystems receive configuration data from stack,
> for example,
>
> "struct clk_init_data" in clk drivers,
> "struct uart_8250_port" in 8250 serial drivers.
>
> sizeof(struct uart_8250_port) = 528 byte,
> but it is still working in stack.
>
>
>
>
>
> (Q2) Is nvmem_config::read_only necessary?
>
> If .reg_write() callback is set, it is probably writable.
> If .reg_write() is missing, it must be read-only.
>
> I have no idea when nvmem_config::read_only is useful...

You can mark particular instance of provider as read-only which could be
specific to board.

reg_write callbacks can be implemented by provider driver, but read-only
flag would give the flexibility at board level.

>
>
>
>
>
> (Q3) The style of drivers/nvmem/Makefile
>
> This Makefile looks ugly to me.
> All nvmem drivers are just single file modules.
> Why are they renamed when modules are created?
>
> For the name-space reason for modules,
> prefix "nvmem-" makes sense to me.
>
> It is true that adding "nvmem-" prefix is redundant while
> they are located in drivers/nvmem/ directory,
> but renaming in the Makefile is even more annoying to me.
> Having said that, we may not want to churn this.
This is mainly done for consistent module naming.
I prefer to have nvmem- prefix for nvmem modules.

thanks,
srini
>
>
>
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-11 11:39    [W:0.075 / U:2.508 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site