Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] nvmem: Add support for write-only instances
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@outlook.com.au>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20200323150007.7487-1-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
 <20200323150007.7487-6-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
 <20200323190505.GB632476@kroah.com>
 <4820047d-9a99-749c-491d-dbb91a2f5447@linaro.org>
 <20200324122939.GA2348009@kroah.com>
From:   Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <300e8095-3af4-15a2-069f-87ac7cbb83bb@linaro.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 13:25:46 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200324122939.GA2348009@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 24/03/2020 12:29, Greg KH wrote:
>> But the Idea here is :
>> We ended up with providing different options like read-only,root-only to
>> nvmem providers combined with read/write callbacks.
>> With that, there are some cases which are totally invalid, existing code
>> does very minimal check to ensure that before populating with correct
>> attributes to sysfs file. One of such case is with thunderbolt provider
>> which supports only write callback.
>>
>> With this new checks in place these flags and callbacks are correctly
>> validated, would result in correct file attributes.
> Why this crazy set of different groups?  You can set the mode of a sysfs
> file in the callback for when the file is about to be created, that's so
> much simpler and is what it is for.  This feels really hacky and almost
> impossible to follow:(
Thanks for the inputs, That definitely sounds much simpler to deal with.

Am guessing you are referring to is_bin_visible callback?

I will try to clean this up!

thanks,
srini
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h