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;
Date:   Tue, 24 Mar 2020 14:33:52 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Johnson <nicholas.johnson-opensource@outlook.com.au>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] nvmem: Add support for write-only instances
Message-ID: <20200324133352.GA2503959@kroah.com>
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>
 <300e8095-3af4-15a2-069f-87ac7cbb83bb@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <300e8095-3af4-15a2-069f-87ac7cbb83bb@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 01:25:46PM +0000, Srinivas Kandagatla wrote:
> 
> 
> 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?

Yes.