Re: [RFC PATCHv2 1/4] drivers/otp: add initial support for OTP memory

Mike Frysinger
2011-03-26T02:17:11Z

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 20:21, Jamie Iles wrote:
> For the actual ioctl() we should assume byte addressing rather than
> words though and do the conversion in the driver so we can cope with
> devices that don't have 64-bit words and do the locking on a looping
> word-by-word basis.
>
>        struct otp_lock_req {
>                __u32   start_addr;
>                __u32   byte_count;
>        };

i would add an ABI field here too so if in the future we want to add
stuff, we can do so without adding new ioctls. like "u16 version; u16
flags;". then in the ioctl, if version isnt 0, we return ENOTSUP. in
the future, we can add flags or bump the version.

> Mike, would this be OK with you if we used a different ioctl() to the
> one bfin-otp is using currently?  I notice that it's using the OTPLOCK
> ioctl() from MTD but I think it's using the argument in a different way.

i re-used OTPLOCK because it's exactly the name i wanted and it was
easier than carving out my own namespace, but the args are different.
i can see how people might find this undesirable.
-mike