Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:23:50 +0100 | From | Rafał Miłecki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules |
| |
On 2023-03-06 15:18, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Rafał, > > rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:57:03 +0100: > >> On 2023-03-06 14:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: >> > Hi Michael, >> > >> > michael@walle.cc wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 14:01:34 +0100: >> > >> >> > Miquel Raynal (8): >> >> > of: Fix modalias string generation >> >> > of: Change of_device_get_modalias() main argument >> >> > of: Create an of_device_request_module() receiving an OF node >> >> > nvmem: core: Fix error path ordering >> >> > nvmem: core: Handle the absence of expected layouts >> >> > nvmem: core: Request layout modules loading >> >> > nvmem: layouts: sl28vpd: Convert layout driver into a module >> >> > nvmem: layouts: onie-tlv: Convert layout driver into a module >> >> >> With the fixes series [1] applied: >> > >> > Thanks for the series! Looks good to me. I believe both series can live >> > in separate tress, any reason why we would like to avoid this? I am > keen >> > to apply [1] into the mtd tree rather soon. >> >> Given past events with nvmem patches I'm against that. >> >> Let's wait for Srinivas to collect pending patches, let them spend a >> moment in linux-next maybe, ask Srinivas to send them to Greg early if >> he can. That way maybe you can merge Greg's branch (assuming he >> doesn't >> rebase). > > Just to be on the same page, we're talking about the mtd core fixups to > handle correctly probe deferrals in the nvmem side. > > Applying mtd patches then nvmem patches is totally fine in this order. > Applying nvmem patches and then mtd patches creates a range of commits > where some otp devices might have troubles probing if: > - a layout driver is used > - the driver is compiled as a module > - the driver is also not installed in an initramfs > > I was actually asking out loud whether we should care about this > commit range given the unlikelihood that someone would have troubles > with this while bisecting a linux-next kernel. > > So getting an immutable tag from Greg would not help. The opposite > might make sense though, and involves that I apply [1] to mtd/next > rather soon anyway, I guess?
The problem IIUC is nvmem.git / for-next containing broken code after adding nvmem stuff. That is unless Srinivas takes your patches in some way. Hopefully not by waiting for 6.4-rc1.
| |