Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 00:09:09 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Thomas =?iso-8859-1?Q?Wei=DFschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@kernel.org>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Min Li <min15.li@samsung.com>,
        Christian Loehle <CLoehle@hyperstone.com>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
        Jack Wang <jinpu.wang@ionos.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Yeqi Fu <asuk4.q@gmail.com>, Avri Altman <avri.altman@wdc.com>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>,
        Ye Bin <yebin10@huawei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        =?utf-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <rafal@milecki.pl>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] nvmem: add block device NVMEM provider
Message-ID: <ZLjdlbf0TXZSZa2t@infradead.org>
References: <cover.1689802933.git.daniel@makrotopia.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cover.1689802933.git.daniel@makrotopia.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 11:01:14PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> This series is meant to open the discussion on how exactly the device tree
> schema for block devices and partitions may look like, and even if using
> the block layer to back the NVMEM device is at all the way to go -- to me
> it seemed to be a good solution because it will be reuable e.g. for NVMe.

If only NVMe did something sane there.  NVMe copied the completely
idiotic idea of boot partitions from eMMC/SD, and made it even worse
by first requiring bit banged register access for them, and now adding
a weird admin command to read them, which is not bound to a block
device.  If we want to support that in NVMe we'll need code in the
nvme core, but I hope we can avoid it and no one sane (that is
everyone but the completely clueless BIOS people at Intel) will never
use this completely fucked up boot partition concept.