Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] nvmem: add support for cell lookups

From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@bootlin.com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>,
	Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
	linux-doc <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab+samsung@kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	David Lechner <david@lechnology.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Sven Van Asbroeck <svendev@arcx.com>,
	"open list:MEMORY TECHNOLOGY..." <linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org>,
	Linux-OMAP <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@linaro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Lukas Wunner <lukas@wunner.de>, Naren <naren.kernel@gmail.com>,
	netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>, Alban Bedel <albeu@free.fr>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	"David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/29] nvmem: add support for cell lookups
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:53:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180828165309.0594ae13@bbrezillon> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=MeALxpyBQhWxGPt9BubO_ZwKGih1d8zhRzFYZ0+3kHFAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 16:41:04 +0200
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:

> 2018-08-28 15:45 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>:
> >
> >
> > On 28/08/18 12:56, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:  
> >>
> >> 2018-08-28 12:15 GMT+02:00 Srinivas Kandagatla
> >> <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>:  
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 27/08/18 14:37, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:  
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I didn't notice it before but there's a global list of nvmem cells  
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Bit of history here.
> >>>
> >>> The global list of nvmem_cell is to assist non device tree based cell
> >>> lookups. These cell entries come as part of the non-dt providers
> >>> nvmem_config.
> >>>
> >>> All the device tree based cell lookup happen dynamically on
> >>> request/demand,
> >>> and all the cell definition comes from DT.
> >>>  
> >>
> >> Makes perfect sense.
> >>  
> >>> As of today NVMEM supports both DT and non DT usecase, this is much
> >>> simpler.
> >>>
> >>> Non dt cases have various consumer usecases.
> >>>  
> >>> 1> Consumer is aware of provider name and cell details.  
> >>>          This is probably simple usecase where it can just use device
> >>> based
> >>> apis.
> >>>  
> >>> 2> Consumer is not aware of provider name, its just aware of cell name.  
> >>>          This is the case where global list of cells are used.
> >>>  
> >>
> >> I would like to support an additional use case here: the provider is
> >> generic and is not aware of its cells at all. Since the only way of
> >> defining nvmem cells is through DT or nvmem_config, we lack a way to
> >> allow machine code to define cells without the provider code being
> >> aware.  
> >
> >
> > machine driver should be able to do
> > nvmem_device_get()
> > nvmem_add_cells()
> >  
> 
> Indeed, I missed the fact that you can retrieve the nvmem device by
> name. Except that we cannot know that the nvmem provider has been
> registered yet when calling nvmem_device_get(). This could potentially
> be solved by my other patch that adds notifiers to nvmem, but it would
> require much more boilerplate code in every board file. I think that
> removing nvmem_cell_info from nvmem_config and having external cell
> definitions would be cleaner.

I also vote for this option.

> >
> >  static struct nvmem_cell *nvmem_find_cell(const char *cell_id)

Can we get rid of this function and just have the the version that
takes an nvmem_name and a cell_id.

> >> Yes, I would like to rework nvmem a bit. I don't see any non-DT users
> >> defining nvmem-cells using nvmem_config. I think that what we need is
> >> a way of specifying cell config outside of nvmem providers in some
> >> kind of structures. These tables would reference the provider by name
> >> and define the cells. Then we would have an additional lookup
> >> structure which would associate the consumer (by dev_id and con_id,
> >> where dev_id could optionally be NULL and where we would fall back to
> >> using con_id only) and the nvmem provider + cell together. Similarly
> >> to how GPIO consumers are associated with the gpiochip and hwnum. How
> >> does it sound?  
> >
> > Yes, sounds good.
> >
> > Correct me if am wrong!
> > You should be able to add the new cells using struct nvmem_cell_info and add
> > them to particular provider using nvmem_add_cells().
> >
> > Sounds like thats exactly what nvmem_add_lookup_table() would look like.
> >
> > We should add new nvmem_device_cell_get(nvmem, conn_id) which would return
> > nvmem cell which is specific to the provider. This cell can be used by the
> > machine driver to read/write.  
> 
> Except that we could do it lazily - when the nvmem provider actually
> gets registered instead of doing it right away and risking that the
> device isn't even there yet.

And again, I agree with you. That's basically what lookup tables are
meant for: defining resources that are supposed to be attached to a
device when it's registered to a subsystem.

> 
> >  
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW: of_nvmem_cell_get() seems to always allocate an nvmem_cell
> >>>> instance even if the cell for this node was already added to the nvmem
> >>>> device.  
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I hope you got the reason why of_nvmem_cell_get() always allocates new
> >>> instance for every get!!  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I admit I didn't test it, but just from reading the code it seems like
> >> in nvmem_cell_get() for DT-users we'll always get to
> >> of_nvmem_cell_get() and in there we always end up calling line 873:
> >> cell = kzalloc(sizeof(*cell), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>  
> > That is correct, this cell is created when we do a get and release when we
> > do a put().
> >  
> 
> Shouldn't we add the cell to the list, and check first if it's there
> and only create it if not?

Or even better: create the cells at registration time so that the
search code is the same for both DT and non-DT cases. Only the
registration would differ (with one path parsing the DT, and the other
one searching for nvmem cells defined with a nvmem-provider-lookup
table).