Re: [PATCH 0/8] nvmem: Let layout drivers be modules

["Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>]

On 2023-03-06 15:29, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Rafał,
> 
> rafal@milecki.pl wrote on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:23:50 +0100:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I don't follow. There will be nothing broken after applying the nvmem
> patches, at least nothing more than today. I will apply the patches
> provided by Michael, they fix existing issues, nothing related to the
> nvmem changes. Just, it is easier to trigger these issues with the
> nvmem series thanks to the probe deferral situations.
> 
> Both series can live on their own. If required I will produce an
> immutable tag to Greg.

OK, it's me how didn't follow then.

I thought your mtd fixes are needed before applying nvmem stuff.

It sounds OK then.