[RFC PATCH 3/6] block: add new genhd flag GENHD_FL_NO_NVMEM

[Daniel Golle]

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 10:24:18AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 7/20/23 00:03, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > Add new flag to destinguish block devices which should not act as an
> > NVMEM provider, such as for example an emulated block device on top of
> > an MTD partition which already acts as an NVMEM provider itself.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Golle <daniel at makrotopia.org>
> > ---
> >   include/linux/blkdev.h | 3 +++
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > index 2f5371b8482c0..e853d1815be15 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > @@ -80,11 +80,14 @@ struct partition_meta_info {
> >    * ``GENHD_FL_NO_PART``: partition support is disabled.  The kernel will not
> >    * scan for partitions from add_disk, and users can't add partitions manually.
> >    *
> > + * ``GENHD_FL_NO_NVMEM``: NVMEM emulation is disabled.  The kernel will not
> > + * emulate an NVMEM device on top of this disk.
> >    */
> >   enum {
> >   	GENHD_FL_REMOVABLE			= 1 << 0,
> >   	GENHD_FL_HIDDEN				= 1 << 1,
> >   	GENHD_FL_NO_PART			= 1 << 2,
> > +	GENHD_FL_NO_NVMEM			= 1 << 3,
> >   };
> >   enum {
> Please reverse this flag. Most of the devices will not have an NVMEM
> partition, and we shouldn't require each and every driver to tag their
> devices.
> So please use GENHD_FL_NVMEM and only set this flag on devices which really
> have an NVMEM partition.

The idea here was to exclude all those devices which already implement
an NVMEM provider on a lower layer themselves, such as MTD.
In this cases it would be ambigous if the OF node represents the
NVMEM device registered by the MTD framework or if blk-nvmem should be
used.

In all other cases device tree can unambigously indicate whether a
block device should serve as NVMEM provider (and right, most of them
never will).

However, reversing the logic seems fine just as well.