RE: [PATCH 0/7] New eFuse subsystem

James Hartley
2015-02-25T13:12:06Z

Hi Maxime,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ezequiel Garcia
> Sent: 25 February 2015 12:30
> To: Maxime Ripard
> Cc: Thierry Reding; Stephen Warren; Arnd Bergmann; Andrew Bresticker;
> James Hartley; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] New eFuse subsystem
>
>
>
> On 02/25/2015 09:02 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Ezequiel,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 08:45:12AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> >> This patchset introduces a new driver subsystem, meant to support
> >> eFuse (alias OTP, one-time-programmable) devices.
> >>
> >> The motivation behind this work is to have a common place for drivers
> >> that are currently more or less scattered: the tegra efuses are in
> >> drivers/soc/ and the sunxi efuses in drivers/misc/eeprom.
> >>
> >> For now, there's no proposal for a generic efuse API. Instead, we
> >> simply group the drivers together.
> >>
> >> This patchset is the result of the initial submission for IMG
> >> Pistachio eFuse support [1]. Our first proposal was to follow the
> >> Tegra efuse, and put the Pistachio efuse in drivers/soc. After some
> >> discussion we finally agreed [2] to first create an efuse directoy,
> >> and then put all efuse drivers in it.
> >>
> >> As always, all comments are welcome!
> >>
> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg59246.html
> >> [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg389325.html
> >
> > Have you looked at the EEPROM framework currently in discussions? The
> > two seems to be covering pretty much the same use cases.
> >

Shouldn't this be a PROM framework if it is going to support both EEPROM and EFUSE/QFPROM, or am I missing something here (since an eFuse is not eraseable)?

>
> Nope, I was obviously unaware of that. Guess we'll wait until the discussion is
> settled and use that framework.
>
> Thanks!
> --
> Ezequiel

Thanks,
James.