From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6353F7D00B for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:15:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727547AbeH1OGM (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:06:12 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f53.google.com ([74.125.82.53]:51501 "EHLO mail-wm0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727519AbeH1OGM (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:06:12 -0400 Received: by mail-wm0-f53.google.com with SMTP id y2-v6so1321974wma.1 for ; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eFEDCsp7W9hfDmCytTf7/IYHRAO9pUMzrBfL2aDncfU=; b=JCDIhBNd79zTXl5L8alaXs6S+o12ZDrNjtJLGv6s8hnojMd1buaNYHGm053B07CGk0 gBUOBEnLmYfRLUhaVlfkj72nAXgm3LlUXFMdMpB9wy4eCOVg7UxeSZI/TDUh6u8tFe9Z QlficPRWFDHvOrenk5EYFAixVDS5LxyEx4JgM= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=eFEDCsp7W9hfDmCytTf7/IYHRAO9pUMzrBfL2aDncfU=; b=pu+0uIZnVmDjoV6bGDCguKIRiauYKGodXgFIRTN5Pa9IVJS+E/DOnVu/ySVMRddNmu lS5Kp2e2jFzA/Wr6x/mXgSFE6RzulK3MnnKsj9NOMwMhMZbN9zwcjAZJjvCbpJGw+9k9 nGuSeeQEC7jNl0tXXJYL4x+AAkhR1+/M2uzIAmhnMxHpQLX+JkFEIeN97wh0Bg9Rjc/K dV3Mwkpmrz8qkMQ9U14RGFj7F+txZ+QEiVtnp0ldAoTxumVo1qsZJTmiTACsPsQx6vI9 KpA10kiJEW0PuiDr2ZV8J6ZIEm+vEsev1sD4FTiOsnod0BlG6oVX5teM/b9uWiFQKRDD nfxw== X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51C3Ce0K8MgR+zoaMGjXWGqwMWDRlZXxQh7Iy2V8fGHP2W7QUdtV sFTzLuwVRvsBMZkvD1DzCpBPZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdbhZdSwmLNZTR4NuF3OdtieZ3D28Qy40kE5o7AiOdlwqrqVuo7ZKy9SDTzLkA5mEg62+PTrcw== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:9f41:: with SMTP id i62-v6mr832033wme.87.1535451315287; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 03:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.18] (cpc90716-aztw32-2-0-cust92.18-1.cable.virginm.net. [86.26.100.93]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id u127-v6sm622722wmf.48.2018.08.28.03.15.13 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 03:15:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] nvmem: add support for cell lookups To: Bartosz Golaszewski , Boris Brezillon Cc: Andrew Lunn , linux-doc , Sekhar Nori , Bartosz Golaszewski , linux-i2c , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring , Florian Fainelli , Kevin Hilman , Richard Weinberger , Russell King , Marek Vasut , Paolo Abeni , Dan Carpenter , Grygorii Strashko , David Lechner , Arnd Bergmann , Sven Van Asbroeck , "open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." , Linux-OMAP , Linux ARM , Ivan Khoronzhuk , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Jonathan Corbet , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Lukas Wunner , Naren , netdev , Alban Bedel , Andrew Morton , Brian Norris , David Woodhouse , "David S . Miller" References: <20180810080526.27207-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180810080526.27207-2-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20180824170848.29594318@bbrezillon> <20180824152740.GD27483@lunn.ch> <20180825082722.567e8c9a@bbrezillon> <20180827110055.122988d0@bbrezillon> From: Srinivas Kandagatla Message-ID: <8cb75723-dc87-f127-2aab-54dd0b08eee8@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:15:12 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On 27/08/18 14:37, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > I didn't notice it before but there's a global list of nvmem cells Bit of history here. The global list of nvmem_cell is to assist non device tree based cell lookups. These cell entries come as part of the non-dt providers nvmem_config. All the device tree based cell lookup happen dynamically on request/demand, and all the cell definition comes from DT. As of today NVMEM supports both DT and non DT usecase, this is much simpler. Non dt cases have various consumer usecases. 1> Consumer is aware of provider name and cell details. This is probably simple usecase where it can just use device based apis. 2> Consumer is not aware of provider name, its just aware of cell name. This is the case where global list of cells are used. > with each cell referencing its owner nvmem device. I'm wondering if > this isn't some kind of inversion of ownership. Shouldn't each nvmem > device have a separate list of nvmem cells owned by it? What happens This is mainly done for use case where consumer does not have idea of provider name or any details. First thing non dt user should do is use "NVMEM device based consumer APIs" ex: First get handle to nvmem device using its nvmem provider name by calling nvmem_device_get(); and use nvmem_device_cell_read/write() apis. Also am not 100% sure how would maintaining cells list per nvmem provider would help for the intended purpose of global list? > if we have two nvmem providers with the same names for cells? I'm Yes, it would return the first instance.. which is a known issue. Am not really sure this is a big problem as of today! but am open for any better suggestions! > asking because dev_id based lookup doesn't make sense if internally > nvmem_cell_get_from_list() doesn't care about any device names (takes > only the cell_id as argument). As I said this is for non DT usecase where consumers are not aware of provider details. > > This doesn't cause any trouble now since there are no users defining > cells in nvmem_config - there are only DT users - but this must be > clarified before I can advance with correctly implementing nvmem > lookups. DT users should not be defining this to start with! It's redundant and does not make sense! > > BTW: of_nvmem_cell_get() seems to always allocate an nvmem_cell > instance even if the cell for this node was already added to the nvmem > device. I hope you got the reason why of_nvmem_cell_get() always allocates new instance for every get!! thanks, srini