Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 04 Oct 2023 19:16:52 +0200 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible |
| |
Hi,
>> >> Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions >> >> in various ways. >> > >> > I've been thinking at the proper way to describe the binman partitions. >> > I am wondering if we should really extend the fixed-partitions >> > schema. This description is really basic and kind of supposed to remain >> > like that. Instead, I wonder if we should not just keep the binman >> > compatible alone, like many others already. This way it would be very clear >> > what is expected and allowed in both cases. I am thinking about >> > something like that: >> > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml >> > >> > this file is also referenced there (but this patch does the same, which >> > is what I'd expect): >> > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml >> > >> > I'll let the binding maintainers judge whether they think it's >> > relevant, it's not a strong opposition. >> >> What is the overall goal here? To replace the current binman node >> which is >> usually contained in the -u-boot.dtsi files? If one is using binman to >> create an image, is it expected that one needs to adapt the DT in >> linux? >> Or will it still be a seperate -u-boot.dtsi? > Because in the latter >> case >> I see that there will be conflicts because you have to overwrite the >> flash node. Or will it be a seperate node with all the information >> duplicated? > > The goal is simply to have a full binding for firmware layout, such > that firmware images can be created, examined and updated. The > -u-boot.dtsi files are a stopgap while we sort out a real binding. > They should eventually go away.
You haven't answered whether this node should be a seperate binman node - or if you'll reuse the existing flash (partitions) node(s) and add any missing property there. If it's the latter, I don't think compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions"; is correct.
>> Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful. > > Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the > example?
Like a complete (stripped) DTS. Right now I just see how the individual node looks like. But with a complete example DTS, my question from above would have been answered.
What if a board uses eMMC to store the firmware binaries? Will that then be a subnode to the eMMC device?
-michael
| |