[RFC PATCH 1/3] eeprom: Add a simple EEPROM framework

Srinivas Kandagatla
2015-02-21T11:31:49Z

On 20/02/15 22:01, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla
> <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/02/15 17:21, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:08 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
>>> <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>
>>>> Up until now, EEPROM drivers were stored in drivers/misc, where they all
>>>> had to
>>>> duplicate pretty much the same code to register a sysfs file, allow
>>>> in-kernel
>>>> users to access the content of the devices they were driving, etc.
>>>>
>>>> This was also a problem as far as other in-kernel users were involved,
>>>> since
>>>> the solutions used were pretty much different from on driver to another,
>>>> there
>>>> was a rather big abstraction leak.
>>>>
>>>> This introduction of this framework aims at solving this. It also
>>>> introduces DT
>>>> representation for consumer devices to go get the data they require (MAC
>>>> Addresses, SoC/Revision ID, part numbers, and so on) from the EEPROMs.
>>>>
>>>> Having regmap interface to this framework would give much better
>>>> abstraction for eeproms on different buses.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>> [srinivas.kandagatla: Moved to regmap based and cleanedup apis]
>>>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/eeprom/eeprom.txt | 48 ++++
>>>> drivers/Kconfig | 2 +
>>>> drivers/Makefile | 1 +
>>>> drivers/eeprom/Kconfig | 19 ++
>>>> drivers/eeprom/Makefile | 9 +
>>>> drivers/eeprom/core.c | 290
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> include/linux/eeprom-consumer.h | 73 ++++++
>>>> include/linux/eeprom-provider.h | 51 ++++
>>>
>>>
>>> Who is going to be the maintainer for this?
>>
>>
>> Am happy to be one.
>
> So please add a MAINTAINERS entry.
Yep, I will do that in next version.

>
> [...]
>
>>>> += Data consumers =
>>>> +
>>>> +Required properties:
>>>> +
>>>> +eeproms: List of phandle and data cell specifier triplet, one triplet
>>>> + for each data cell the device might be interested in. The
>>>> + triplet consists of the phandle to the eeprom provider, then
>>>> + the offset in byte within that storage device, and the length
>>>> + in byte of the data we care about.
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem with this is it assumes you know who the consumer is and
>>> that it is a DT node. For example, how would you describe a serial
>>> number?
>>
>> Correct me if I miss understood.
>> Is serial number any different?
>> Am hoping that the eeprom consumer would be aware of offset and size of
>> serial number in the eeprom
>>
>> Cant the consumer do:
>>
>> eeprom-consumer {
>> eeproms = <&at24 0 4>;
>> eeprom-names = "device-serial-number";
>
> Yes, but who is "eeprom-consumer"? DT nodes generally describe a h/w
> block, but it this case, the consumer depends on the OS, not the h/w.

Consumer could be any driver for the IP on the SOC, for example an
ethernet driver which needs Mac Address from eeprom or an thermal sensor
which requires cablibration values or an cpufreq driver which requires
OPP settings. Am not sure who could be the consumer for serial number, I
guess it should some soc specific driver.

> I'm not saying you can't describe where things are, but I don't think
> you should imply who is the consumer and doing so is unnecessarily
> complicated.
>
> Also, the layout of EEPROM is likely very much platform specific. Some
> could have a more complex structure perhaps with key ids and linked
> list structure.
I agree, the data layout is very specific to platform and could vary in
complexity.
This simple framework is attempting to solve most common usecase where
in the consumer drivers like thermal-sensor/network/cpufreq needs to
read an location in the eeprom. Am sure we can find a way to accommodate
the complex layout as well.
>
> I would do something more simple that is just a list of keys and their
> location like this:
>
> device-serial-number = <start size>;
> key1 = <start size>;
> key2 = <start size>;
>
There are pros and cons doing it as list of keys.

One reason for doing it as fixed properties("eeproms", "eemprom-names")
is "consistency and familiarity" like interrupts, regs, dmas, clocks,
pinctrl, reset, pwm have fixed property names, trying to get most
subsystems to do it the same way makes it easier for people to write dts
files.

--srini

> Rob
>