From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.3ffe.de (0001.3ffe.de [159.69.201.130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D88A3E0251; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 08:43:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.201.130 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782895435; cv=none; b=JtJPuem2IhR+vWYtMzvmKDZuRzSCHvKgGBeRPAN4YS+hqJx/RgdQU4FBwpO6cgV+3HYW6Gh7ViJH3XYEXyfDBED7OEXJa1eUsvRZ3y+or+WGmSlzdYHCFujE8L7Vo/CvILf1Hx+vZr4RSbFyfSAIjIbqCBCWFywvJm9MoBndaSo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1782895435; c=relaxed/simple; bh=IruFylOlTxcJm5hyyL/eFNS0o3To89PaJ6QDaYNLHrE=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Subject:Cc:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=U1uxUj0pOBzpFR5x2gQfcVljOGhO2NJnNEMTKcy9cjPbSw0987Aq3Y4ij1FhfcBgkbGLJ7FcpFa9/D7b33LkDTU9Htyp1hQFRgJrBXTCwhN/xoMSWMkwLVloKHu/A4wFBEp4MGCg3VlLiLi3fYdTS7wUv88k2mrseMzcxhLZIZE= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=walle.cc; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=walle.cc; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=walle.cc header.i=@walle.cc header.b=h67gQjQB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.201.130 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=walle.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=walle.cc Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=walle.cc header.i=@walle.cc header.b="h67gQjQB" Received: from localhost (unknown [213.135.10.150]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.3ffe.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 880D35B6; Wed, 1 Jul 2026 10:34:38 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=walle.cc; s=mail2022082101; t=1782894878; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OV8gaPiQO40kpe0vnMtC2nXL8DrZwaWi9384uLF+/CY=; b=h67gQjQBVSxm1zGv4NOn57N9gJTCxMWWp3YcNhFmHdxQHNawukaOxBFeoTLd7xSSsUmHEb QHOO7Rdm6R9+IhDqEV//349b1hxptHCVf1Ld31NKjoCEVG3yZWiCutXBBQIV2AETWkCvG0 2cvaUpJLCDQ65E9H4T7Bz3ZxH6x4FUP/Fk5LNDw6NweLNxPVKswcK05bPvhIWZ5hC03CGb zu9OuKTRqyoO5BGXK6QgIby1CRCo3dgJBzS+jDk1gA31fpjROSM1sYk8vN6mvqxzcilIxi 5sg1p4WSH4Ikuhd3m7Ug/A13vn7+YhQwohIgElCdJhJ/Z95aXmB3+k3/Z3v1Aw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=7dc42cc06038756823fa21ce147a9856939103d1b021230f1b15a2a59c78; micalg=pgp-sha384; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 10:34:35 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] dt-bindings: mtd: jedec,spi-nor: allow the SFDP to be exposed via NVMEM Cc: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: "Michael Walle" To: "Linus Walleij" , "Manikandan Muralidharan" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20260630092406.150587-1-manikandan.m@microchip.com> <20260630092406.150587-2-manikandan.m@microchip.com> In-Reply-To: --7dc42cc06038756823fa21ce147a9856939103d1b021230f1b15a2a59c78 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi, >> Add an optional "sfdp" child node (compatible "jedec,sfdp") that >> describes the SFDP as a read-only NVMEM provider via nvmem.yaml, so its >> contents (e.g. a vendor EUI-48/EUI-64) can be read through NVMEM cells. >> >> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan > > I would expect it to follow nvmem conventions like this, notice > compatibles specific-to-general with sfdp first: > sfdp { > /* NVMEM provided by SFDP */ > compatible =3D "jedec,sfdp", "nvmem-cells"; > label =3D "SFDP"; Isn't using label frowned upon? I wouldn't add that to the example. > read-only; > #address-cells =3D <1>; > #size-cells =3D <1>; > > mac0: macaddr@0x00 { > reg =3D <0x00 0x06>; > }; > mac1: macaddr@0x06 { > reg =3D <0x06 0x06>; > }; > }; If I'm correct, this is the old style, see commit bd912c991d2e ("dt-bindings: nvmem: layouts: add fixed-layout"). So it should eventually look like: sfdp { compatible =3D "jedec,sfdp"; nvmem-layout { compatible =3D "microchip,sst26vf-sfdp-eui"; }; }; Which is what patch series will lead to. Also I'm not sure if we really need to add the "nvmem-cells" here. IIRC in MTD it was there to tell a driver to add an nvmem device to an already existing compatible/node. Apart from the MTD case, I've just found qcom,smem-part,yaml which has compatible =3D "nvmem-cells". -michael > Your example should definitely be more elaborate like this, > just an opaque sfdp node will not suffice. Maybe a separate > example? > > Yours, > Linus Walleij --7dc42cc06038756823fa21ce147a9856939103d1b021230f1b15a2a59c78 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iKcEABMJAC8WIQTIVZIcOo5wfU/AngkSJzzuPgIf+AUCakTRGxEcbWljaGFlbEB3 YWxsZS5jYwAKCRASJzzuPgIf+PesAYCvxlMrRPb3CpBzPYndulCo9xHSs8WFx8GM YRvSkp3iZq/ziK9zzw8WIc8dB59hR7gBgJcgQcwu/qH+CFtJvfiWDEH4EWXU3HSR 2Jx1LkNCSYEaHycVFgiepmorZPwBghbBeA== =IjRV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7dc42cc06038756823fa21ce147a9856939103d1b021230f1b15a2a59c78--