Re: [PATCH 4/9] nvmem: layouts: add U-Boot env layout

["Rafał Miłecki" <rafal@milecki.pl>]

Hi Greg,

On 2024-09-03 12:12, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 03:29:47PM +0100, 
> srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> 
>> U-Boot environment variables are stored in a specific format. Actual
>> data can be placed in various storage sources (MTD, UBI volume, 
>> EEPROM,
>> NVRAM, etc.).
>> 
>> Move all generic (NVMEM device independent) code from NVMEM device
>> driver to an NVMEM layout driver. Then add a simple NVMEM layout code 
>> on
>> top of it.
>> 
>> This allows using NVMEM layout for parsing U-Boot env data stored in 
>> any
>> kind of NVMEM device.
>> 
>> The old NVMEM glue driver stays in place for handling bindings in the
>> MTD context. To avoid code duplication it uses exported layout parsing
>> function. Please note that handling MTD & NVMEM layout bindings may be
>> refactored in the future.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
>> Reviewed-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  MAINTAINERS                        |   1 +
>>  drivers/nvmem/Kconfig              |   3 +-
>>  drivers/nvmem/layouts/Kconfig      |  11 ++
>>  drivers/nvmem/layouts/Makefile     |   1 +
>>  drivers/nvmem/layouts/u-boot-env.c | 211 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  drivers/nvmem/layouts/u-boot-env.h |  15 ++
>>  drivers/nvmem/u-boot-env.c         | 165 +---------------------
>>  7 files changed, 242 insertions(+), 165 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/nvmem/layouts/u-boot-env.c
>>  create mode 100644 drivers/nvmem/layouts/u-boot-env.h
> 
> This patch doesn't apply to my tree :(
> 
> Also, if you generate patches with 'git format-patch -M' you can see
> when files move easier (if that's what happened here, hard to tell..)

It's because it was developed on top of "nvmem: u-boot-env: error if 
NVMEM device is too small" which you applied to the "char-misc-linus" 
branch. Perhaps you could push that fix ("error if...") to your both 
branches somehow?

-- 
Rafał Miłecki