On 2023-03-09 12:44, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
On 09/03/2023 11:23, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:53:07 +0000:
On 09/03/2023 10:32, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:12:24 +0000:
On 22/02/2023 17:22, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
@@ -1791,11 +1792,15 @@ ssize_t nvmem_device_cell_read(struct nvmem_device *nvmem, if (!nvmem) return -EINVAL; > + /* Cells with read_post_process hook may realloc buffer we can't allow here */
- if (info->read_post_process)
return -EINVAL;This should probably go in 1/4 patch. Other than that series looks good to me.
FYI patch 1/4 is also carried by the nvmem-layouts series, so it's probably best to keep these 2 patches separated to simplify the merging.
that is intermediate thing, but Ideally this change belongs to 1/4 patch, so once I apply these patches then we can always rebase layout series on top of nvmem-next
Well, I still don't see the need for this patch because we have no use for it *after* the introduction of layouts. Yes in some cases changing the size of a cell might maybe be needed, but right now the use case is to provide a MAC address, we know beforehand the size of the cell, so there is no need, currently, for this hack.
Am confused, should I ignore this series ?
I'm confused no less.
I think we have 3 different opinions and no agreement on how to proceed.
Rafał (me): NVMEM cells should be registered as they are in the raw format. No size adjustments should happen while registering them. If NVMEM cell requires some read post-processing then its size should be adjusted *while* reading.
Michael: .read_post_process() should be realloc the buffer
Miquel: While registering NVMEM cell its size should be already adjusted to match what .read_post_process() is about to return.
I'm really sorry if I got anyone's view wrong.