From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D9B7B18B1C for ; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D1D8EC433C7; Wed, 4 Oct 2023 17:16:54 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1696439817; bh=65wN/OPk7VyVnaoHcf2mpY7v09FcPKJdaCZKb1Bz7dE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=u+CIuR8/ePugGDtCtrHAGraYMIAqvKSDUylA0pm9xZwieyDbL+0AGbIHBB9wXKaHT OKhgEwYHAaXPM+9f2oWHe1E5tjE2I9l2qdoGK4Z0x4i6dvOyMaBpvTR3yO565gMSFZ XDwTKOli+3i+5H3snBaI//sXT+IJMsAiaZsMwDm9gD2WFm8Uxp3zrSQBOQOoosUdn7 rjRYzgNsuCTkAnPZV3rB/gF92SFvBQKwOOd43tKs/Sq+OvvZG6SImrgu/1xLkkEYK0 gtfkhX3jt4WO7NzXL0jpoychFyHG0l8RMBpkB7nxyUIg8B/PQF19t0h/ozXWxql/KU YVCfGDhLFSfNw== Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2023 19:16:52 +0200 From: Michael Walle To: Simon Glass Cc: miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ptyadav@amazon.de, rafal@milecki.pl, richard@nod.at, robh+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, trini@konsulko.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de, vigneshr@ti.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible In-Reply-To: References: <20231004093620.2b1d6917@xps-13> <20231004113458.531124-1-mwalle@kernel.org> Message-ID: <9e588e3ec8c0c321a2861723d0d42b9a@kernel.org> X-Sender: mwalle@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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