From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: physmap_of and partitions (mtd concat support) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:37:31 -0600 Message-ID: References: <200903231151.10373.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200903231151.10373.sr@denx.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+glppe-linuxppc-embedded-2=m.gmane.org@ozlabs.org To: Stefan Roese Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, devicetree-discuss list List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Stefan Roese wrote: > I just noticed that physmap_of can't handle multiple devices of different type > described in one device node. For example the Intel P30 48F4400 (64MByte) > consists internally of 2 non-identical NOR chips. So a "simple" [...] > Now the real problem: How should I describe a partition in the device tree > spanning over both devices (concat)?. The current physmap_of driver doesn't > handle concat at all (physmap.c does). I already have some ideas on how to > implement this concat support in physmap_of. But ideas about a device-tree > syntax for such partitions are very welcome. Sounds to me like a physmap_of driver bug. I don't think there is any advantage in changing the partition syntax since concatenated flash will always be used as a single device. It doesn't make any sense to try and span partitions over two nodes. Do additional properties need to be added to describe the concat layout? g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.