Re: [PATCH 08/18] fsmc/nand: Add support for default partitions for several NAND devices

[Vipin Kumar <vipin.kumar@st.com>]

On 3/13/2012 3:23 PM, Armando VISCONTI wrote:
> On 03/09/2012 04:11 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 15:47 +0100, Armando Visconti wrote:
>>> On 03/09/2012 02:07 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 17:00 +0530, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>>>>> +static struct mtd_partition partition_info_64KB_blk[] = {
>>>>> +	{
>>>>> +		.name = "X-loader",
>>>>> +		.offset = 0,
>>>>> +		.size = 4*0x10000,
>>>>> +	},
>>>>> +	{
>>>>> +		.name = "U-Boot",
>>>>> +		.offset = 4*0x10000,
>>>>> +		.size = 8*0x40000,
>>>>> +	},
>>>>> +	{
>>>>> +		.name = "Kernel",
>>>>> +		.offset = (4+8)*0x10000,
>>>>> +		.size = 64*0x40000,
>>>>> +	},
>>>>> +	{
>>>>> +		.name = "Root File System",
>>>>> +		.offset = (4+8+64)*0x10000,
>>>>> +		.size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL,
>>>>> +	},
>>>>> +};
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't this kind of data come from DT/platform data or cmdline
>>>> instead? Does it make sense to have it hard-coded in the driver?
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are just the default partitions.
>>
>> I thing the default should be "no partitions" instead of a hard-coded
>> list of partitions tailored to a specific system.
>>
>>> We are passing them also from platform, and it is possible also
>>> from cmdline.
>>
>> Fine, then deleting the defaults should not hurt :-)
>>
>
> Yes, Artem, I think you are right.
> Actually I checked better and I can say that:
>
>     1. We do have the provision to pass the partitions thru pdata and
>        cmdline
>     2. Nevertheless, we are not passing partitions thru pdata in none
>        of our platforms.
>
> I think we need to change this and pass partitions thru pdata.
> Vipin, what's your opinion?
>

Yes, I was thinking on the same lines. Infact I have prepared the 
patches and only going through a basic testing before sending the 
patches to mainline

Regards
Vipin

> Thx,
> Arm
>