Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Mar 2023 11:44:10 +0000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4] nvmem: core: allow nvmem_cell_post_process_t callbacks to adjust buffer | From | Srinivas Kandagatla <> |
| |
On 09/03/2023 11:23, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Hi Srinivas, > > srinivas.kandagatla@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@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 :-)
--srini > > Thanks, > Miquèl
| |