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:   Fri, 21 Jul 2023 13:39:18 +0200
From:   Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Daniel Golle <daniel@makrotopia.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        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>,
        =?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 6/6] block: implement NVMEM provider
Message-ID: <2023072106-partly-thank-8657@gregkh>
References: <cover.1689802933.git.daniel@makrotopia.org>
 <e5b709e15739dc0563e9497a2dbbe63050381db0.1689802933.git.daniel@makrotopia.org>
 <ZLjci5bHzTI+/Kxs@infradead.org>
 <ZLlaOB1sb8wSd7Aq@makrotopia.org>
 <ZLomKmNe+EhpjI1K@infradead.org>
 <ZLpgs-aZVHCQooi0@makrotopia.org>
 <2023072128-shadow-system-1903@gregkh>
 <ZLpsQg3tDj2gEelv@makrotopia.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZLpsQg3tDj2gEelv@makrotopia.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:30:10PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 01:11:40PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 11:40:51AM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 11:31:06PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 05:02:32PM +0100, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 12:04:43AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > > > The layering here is exactly the wrong way around.  This block device
> > > > > > as nvmem provide has not business sitting in the block layer and being
> > > > > > keyed ff the gendisk registration.  Instead you should create a new
> > > > > > nvmem backed that opens the block device as needed if it fits your
> > > > > > OF description without any changes to the core block layer.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ok. I will use a class_interface instead.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure a class_interface makes much sense here.  Why does the
> > > > block layer even need to know about you using a device a nvmem provider?
> > > 
> > > It doesn't. But it has to notify the nvmem providing driver about the
> > > addition of new block devices. This is what I'm using class_interface
> > > for, simply to hook into .add_dev of the block_class.
> > 
> > Why is this single type of block device special to require this, yet all
> > others do not?  Encoding this into the block layer feels like a huge
> > layering violation to me, why not do it how all other block drivers do
> > it instead?
> 
> I was thinkng of this as a generic solution in no way tied to one specific
> type of block device. *Any* internal block device which can be used to
> boot from should also be usable as NVMEM provider imho.

Define "internal" :)

And that's all up to the boot process in userspace, the kernel doesn't
care about this.

> > > > As far as I can tell your provider should layer entirely above the
> > > > block layer and not have to be integrated with it.
> > > 
> > > My approach using class_interface doesn't require any changes to be
> > > made to existing block code. However, it does use block_class. If
> > > you see any other good option to implement matching off and usage of
> > > block devices by in-kernel users, please let me know.
> > 
> > Do not use block_class, again, that should only be for the block core to
> > touch.  Individual block drivers should never be poking around in it.
> 
> Do I have any other options to coldplug and be notified about newly
> added block devices, so the block-device-consuming driver can know
> about them?

What other options do you need?

> This is not a rhetoric question, I've been looking for other ways
> and haven't found anything better than class_find_device or
> class_interface.

Never use that, sorry, that's not for a driver to touch.

> Using those also prevents blk-nvmem to be built as
> a module, so I'd really like to find alternatives.
> E.g. for MTD we got struct mtd_notifier and register_mtd_user().

Your storage/hardware driver should be the thing that "finds block
devices" and registers them with the block class core, right?  After
that, what matters?

confused,

greg k-h