Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: document Broadcom's BCM47xx partitions

["Rafał Miłecki" <zajec5@gmail.com>]

Hi Rob,

On 09.05.2018 10:17, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> 
> Broadcom based home router devices use partitions which have to be
> discovered in a specific way. They are not fixed and there is not any
> standard partition table. This commit adds and describes a new custom
> binding for such devices.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <rafal@milecki.pl>
> ---
> This commit documents a new binding for describing partitions. Just as a
> reminder: we agreed to use "compatible" for that purpose to avoid
> /guessing/. There are too many cases, devices and /formats/ to just
> blindly try every possible parser.
> 
> This was e.g. described by Boris in his patchset 2+ years ago:
> [RFC PATCH 0/7] mtd: partitions: add of_match_table support
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-December/064076.html
> 
> Quote:
>>   (2) we can't just scan for all supported parsers (like the block system does), since
>>       there is a wide diversity of "formats" (no standardization), and it is not
>>       always safe or efficient to attempt to do so, particularly since many of
>>       them allow their data structures to be placed anywhere on the flash, and
>>       so require scanning the entire flash device to find them.
> 
> I believe this solution was also acked back then by Rob:
> [RFC PATCH 3/7] doc: dt: mtd: partition: add on-flash format binding
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-December/064100.html
> 
> V2: Move documentation to the new brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions.txt file
>      as suggested by Rob (we don't want to bloat partition.txt).
>      Slightly update commit message.

I sent this V2 per your request from V1:

On 8 May 2018 at 18:25, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
 > I guess this is fine. Can you resend as I don't have the original patch.
 >
 > I think it should be a separate file though as partition.txt would
 > become very long if every vendor partitioning was added there.

Would you find a moment to review/nack/ack it, please?