> > 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
Yes, I agree—it’s better to present it as a purely fixed-partition capability.
Regards,
Amit
> want: defining fixed partitions through device boundaries. It automatically removes
> the need for further dynamic partition extensions.
>
> Thanks,
> Miquèl
