On 19/11/2024 at 17:02:33 GMT, "Mahapatra, Amit Kumar" <amit.kumar-mahapatra@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Miquel,
>
>> > This approach was suggested by Rob [1] during a discussion on Miquel's
>> > initial approach [2] to extend the MTD-CONCAT driver to support
>> > stacked memories.
>> > Define each flash node separately with its respective partitions, and
>> > add a 'concat-parts' binding to link the partitions of the two flash
>> > nodes that need to be concatenated.
>> >
>> > flash@0 {
>> > compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
>> > ...
>> > partitions {
>>
>> Wrong indentation here and below which makes the example hard to read.
>
> Sorry about that. I am redefining both the flash nodes here with proper
> indentation.
>
> flash@0 {
> compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> ...
> partitions {
> compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
>
> flash0_partition: partition@0 {
> label = "part0_0";
> reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> };
> };
> };
>
> flash@1 {
> compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> ...
> partitions {
> compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
>
> flash1_partition: partition@0 {
> label = "part0_1";
> reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> };
> };
> };
>
>>
>> > compatible = "fixed-partitions";
>> > concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
>> > flash0_partition: partition@0 {
>> > label = "part0_0";
>> > reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>> > flash@1 {
>> > compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
>> > ...
>> > partitions {
>> > compatible = "fixed-partitions";
>> > concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
>> > flash1_partition: partition@0 {
>> > label = "part0_1";
>> > reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
>> > }
>> > }
>> > }
>>
>> This approach has a limitation I didn't think about before: you cannot use anything
>> else than fixed partitions as partition parser.
>
> Yes, that's correct—it won't function when partitions are defined via the
> command line. In my opinion, we should start by adding support for fixed
> partitions, add comments in code stating the same. If needed, we can later
> extend the support to dynamic partitions as well.
New thought. What if it was a pure fixed-partition capability? That's
actually what we want: defining fixed partitions through device
boundaries. It automatically removes the need for further dynamic
partition extensions.
Thanks,
Miquèl
