Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

[Scott Branden]

Greg/Brian/Arnd,

We have OTP device drivers for accessing OTP memory in our SoCs.

I looking for the right place and model to place such OTP device drivers.

1) Should we follow the bfin-otp model in drivers/char?  This doesn't 
seem like the right place to put it although following the bfin example 
is quite simple to implement.  We actually had a custom set of Ioctl's 
that I changed to use the standard file access model used by the bfin 
driver.  But a custom util is still needed to issue an OTPLOCK command. 
  I'm guess mtd-utils has such abilities (or should).

2) Instead, should we start adding OTP-only drivers into the MTD 
subsystem?  Onenand and CFI based MTD devices already have OTP 
programmable regions.  If we created a new OTP device type in the MTD 
subsystem this looks like a good thing to do.  mtd-utils could/should be 
used to access the OTP device then along with standard fileio operations.

3) Or some other suggestion of where to place OTP device drivers?

Regards,
  Scott

Re: Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Monday 28 December 2015 15:21:08 Scott Branden wrote:
> Greg/Brian/Arnd,
> 
> We have OTP device drivers for accessing OTP memory in our SoCs.
> 
> I looking for the right place and model to place such OTP device drivers.
> 
> 1) Should we follow the bfin-otp model in drivers/char?  This doesn't 
> seem like the right place to put it although following the bfin example 
> is quite simple to implement.  We actually had a custom set of Ioctl's 
> that I changed to use the standard file access model used by the bfin 
> driver.  But a custom util is still needed to issue an OTPLOCK command. 
>   I'm guess mtd-utils has such abilities (or should).
> 
> 2) Instead, should we start adding OTP-only drivers into the MTD 
> subsystem?  Onenand and CFI based MTD devices already have OTP 
> programmable regions.  If we created a new OTP device type in the MTD 
> subsystem this looks like a good thing to do.  mtd-utils could/should be 
> used to access the OTP device then along with standard fileio operations.
> 
> 3) Or some other suggestion of where to place OTP device drivers?

I think drivers/nvmem is now the right place for this.

	Arnd

Re: Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

[Scott Branden]

+Srinivas/Maxime

On 15-12-28 03:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 28 December 2015 15:21:08 Scott Branden wrote:
>> Greg/Brian/Arnd,
>>
>> We have OTP device drivers for accessing OTP memory in our SoCs.
>>
>> I looking for the right place and model to place such OTP device drivers.
>>
>> 1) Should we follow the bfin-otp model in drivers/char?  This doesn't
>> seem like the right place to put it although following the bfin example
>> is quite simple to implement.  We actually had a custom set of Ioctl's
>> that I changed to use the standard file access model used by the bfin
>> driver.  But a custom util is still needed to issue an OTPLOCK command.
>>    I'm guess mtd-utils has such abilities (or should).
>>
>> 2) Instead, should we start adding OTP-only drivers into the MTD
>> subsystem?  Onenand and CFI based MTD devices already have OTP
>> programmable regions.  If we created a new OTP device type in the MTD
>> subsystem this looks like a good thing to do.  mtd-utils could/should be
>> used to access the OTP device then along with standard fileio operations.
>>
>> 3) Or some other suggestion of where to place OTP device drivers?
>
> I think drivers/nvmem is now the right place for this.
Thanks for the pointer Arnd.  Too bad an extension wasn't added in MTD 
but at least there is some sort of a model in place now.  The mtd-abi.h 
would have been a good thing to use for OTPLOCK as well as the remainder 
of the functionality in MTD OTP.  The mapping of nvmem to properties to 
user settings seems like a useful feature though.

Hi Srinivas/Maxime,
The nvmem drivers don't seem to support row unlocking of OTP.  Having 
raw write access to the OTP is not a desirable feature.  Are there plans 
in place to add any additional functionality to the nvm driver model 
right now?
>
> 	Arnd
>
Regards,
  Scott

Re: Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

Hi Scott,

Sorry for long delay in replying.. :-)
On 29/12/15 00:32, Scott Branden wrote:
> +Srinivas/Maxime
>
> On 15-12-28 03:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 28 December 2015 15:21:08 Scott Branden wrote:
>>> Greg/Brian/Arnd,
>>>
>>> We have OTP device drivers for accessing OTP memory in our SoCs.
>>>
>>> I looking for the right place and model to place such OTP device
>>> drivers.
>>>
>>> 1) Should we follow the bfin-otp model in drivers/char?  This doesn't
>>> seem like the right place to put it although following the bfin example
>>> is quite simple to implement.  We actually had a custom set of Ioctl's
>>> that I changed to use the standard file access model used by the bfin
>>> driver.  But a custom util is still needed to issue an OTPLOCK command.
>>>    I'm guess mtd-utils has such abilities (or should).
>>>
>>> 2) Instead, should we start adding OTP-only drivers into the MTD
>>> subsystem?  Onenand and CFI based MTD devices already have OTP
>>> programmable regions.  If we created a new OTP device type in the MTD
>>> subsystem this looks like a good thing to do.  mtd-utils could/should be
>>> used to access the OTP device then along with standard fileio
>>> operations.
>>>
>>> 3) Or some other suggestion of where to place OTP device drivers?
>>
>> I think drivers/nvmem is now the right place for this.
> Thanks for the pointer Arnd.  Too bad an extension wasn't added in MTD
> but at least there is some sort of a model in place now.  The mtd-abi.h
> would have been a good thing to use for OTPLOCK as well as the remainder
> of the functionality in MTD OTP.  The mapping of nvmem to properties to
> user settings seems like a useful feature though.
>
> Hi Srinivas/Maxime,
> The nvmem drivers don't seem to support row unlocking of OTP.  Having
> raw write access to the OTP is not a desirable feature.  Are there plans
> in place to add any additional functionality to the nvm driver model
> right now?
NVMEM was started to be simple interface based on regmap, As of today we 
did not have any users which wanted lock feature, but Am open for more 
discussion on this if we want to get this feature via nvmem.

Any ideas and patches are welcome.

Few ideas from my side though,
 From Kernel side: introduce nvmem_lock()/nvmem_unlock() apis which 
would set the ranges as required, and the providers can use regmap 
callbacks writeable_reg()/readable_reg() in regmap configs to enforce 
the lock range

 From userspace side, As of today nvmem only provides an binary file 
interface, which we could probably extend to device based and provide 
userspace abi.

Lets continue discussion !!

--srini



>>
>>     Arnd
>>
> Regards,
>   Scott

Re: Adding OTP-only device to MTD or CHAR subsystem?

[Scott Branden]

Hi Srini,

On 16-01-09 03:13 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> Sorry for long delay in replying.. :-)
> On 29/12/15 00:32, Scott Branden wrote:
>> +Srinivas/Maxime
>>
>> On 15-12-28 03:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Monday 28 December 2015 15:21:08 Scott Branden wrote:
>>>> Greg/Brian/Arnd,
>>>>
>>>> We have OTP device drivers for accessing OTP memory in our SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> I looking for the right place and model to place such OTP device
>>>> drivers.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Should we follow the bfin-otp model in drivers/char?  This doesn't
>>>> seem like the right place to put it although following the bfin example
>>>> is quite simple to implement.  We actually had a custom set of Ioctl's
>>>> that I changed to use the standard file access model used by the bfin
>>>> driver.  But a custom util is still needed to issue an OTPLOCK command.
>>>>    I'm guess mtd-utils has such abilities (or should).
>>>>
>>>> 2) Instead, should we start adding OTP-only drivers into the MTD
>>>> subsystem?  Onenand and CFI based MTD devices already have OTP
>>>> programmable regions.  If we created a new OTP device type in the MTD
>>>> subsystem this looks like a good thing to do.  mtd-utils
>>>> could/should be
>>>> used to access the OTP device then along with standard fileio
>>>> operations.
>>>>
>>>> 3) Or some other suggestion of where to place OTP device drivers?
>>>
>>> I think drivers/nvmem is now the right place for this.
>> Thanks for the pointer Arnd.  Too bad an extension wasn't added in MTD
>> but at least there is some sort of a model in place now.  The mtd-abi.h
>> would have been a good thing to use for OTPLOCK as well as the remainder
>> of the functionality in MTD OTP.  The mapping of nvmem to properties to
>> user settings seems like a useful feature though.
>>
>> Hi Srinivas/Maxime,
>> The nvmem drivers don't seem to support row unlocking of OTP.  Having
>> raw write access to the OTP is not a desirable feature.  Are there plans
>> in place to add any additional functionality to the nvm driver model
>> right now?
> NVMEM was started to be simple interface based on regmap, As of today we
> did not have any users which wanted lock feature, but Am open for more
> discussion on this if we want to get this feature via nvmem.
>
> Any ideas and patches are welcome.
Yes, as I move to the nvmem model we will need to look at adding lock 
feature.
>
> Few ideas from my side though,
>  From Kernel side: introduce nvmem_lock()/nvmem_unlock() apis which
> would set the ranges as required, and the providers can use regmap
> callbacks writeable_reg()/readable_reg() in regmap configs to enforce
> the lock range
The bfin-otp in drivers/char already solves this problem and I think we 
should move that functionality over?
>
>  From userspace side, As of today nvmem only provides an binary file
> interface, which we could probably extend to device based and provide
> userspace abi.
The bfin-otp in drivers/char already solves this problem and I think we 
should move that functionality over?

>
> Lets continue discussion !!
>
> --srini
>
>
>
>>>
>>>     Arnd
>>>
>> Regards,
>>   Scott
>