From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Geert Uytterhoeven Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mtd: create a partition type device tree binding Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 10:06:07 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1446123152-22666-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20151029162908.GA13275@localhost> <20151030175145.GF13239@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-spec-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Rob Herring Cc: Brian Norris , Linus Walleij , "devicetree-spec-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , David Woodhouse , "linux-mtd-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Jason Gunthorpe , Liviu Dudau , =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= , Hauke Mehrtens List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Brian Norris > wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 03:00:57PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Brian Norris >>> wrote: >>> >>> >> +Required properties: >>> >> +- partition-type : the type of partition. Only one type can be specified. >>> > >>> > You're supporting this as a list property (for future expansion, >>> > presumably), so I can only assume the "only one type" is referring to >>> > the number of different parsers available currently, not the behavior of >>> > the property itself? >>> >>> I was thinking that it would not be a list actually. Why not? It is (was) not uncommon to have multiple partition table types on hard disks (e.g. bsd disklabel and msdos and/or amiga rdb). >>> The reason being that if you're anyways going to the trouble of >>> specifying exactly what partition type is going to be used, you're >>> not really interested in specifying a few different ones, you know >>> exactly what type it is going to be. >> >> OK, that makes sense. I think it's still *possible* that a board might >> have the option of more than one partition parser, and so they might >> just include both in the DTS, but that seems unlikely and so it makes >> sense not to (over)engineer for it before it's needed. Anyway, your >> binding can easily be expanded in the future if needed. > > Since we now have partitions contained in a sub node, how about using > compatible for that sub node instead. And "compatible" supports a list of multiple values. BTW, this means it also (can) becomes more generic. Will it be applicable to other block devices (e.g. hard disks), too? Integration with block/partitions? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert-Td1EMuHUCqxL1ZNQvxDV9g@public.gmane.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds