On 09/03/2023 11:23, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
srinivas.kandaga...@linaro.org wrote on Thu, 9 Mar 2023 10:53:07 +0000:
On 09/03/2023 10:32, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Srinivas,
srinivas.kandaga...@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 ?
Whatever. If you want it, just merge it. But *please*, I would like
:-)
to see these layouts in, so what's the plan?
Am on it, you sent v3 just 24hrs ago :-)
--srini
Thanks,
Miquèl
