On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Brian Norris
<computersforpeace@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As noted here [1], there are potentially future conflicts if we try to
> use MTD's "partitions" subnode to describe anything besides just the
> fixed-in-the-device-tree partitions currently described in this
> document. Particularly, there was a proposal to use this node for the
> AFS parser too.
>
> It can pose a (small) problem to try to differentiate the following
> nodes:
>
> // using binding as currently specified
> partitions {
> #address-cells = <x>;
> #size-cells = <y>;
> partition@0 {
> ...;
> };
> };
>
> and
>
> // proposed future binding
> partitions {
> compatible = "arm,arm-flash-structure";
> };
>
> It's especially difficult if other uses of this node start having
> subnodes.
>
> So, since the "partitions" node is new in v4.4, let's fixup the binding
> before release so that it requires a compatible property, so it's much
> clearer to distinguish. e.g.:
>
> // proposed
> partitions {
> compatible = "partitions";
"partitions" sounds mode like a device_type thing than a compatible
name, maybe "fixed-partitions"? IMHO that would describe better what
these are, and doesn't invite to think using compatible =
"arm,arm-flash-structure", "partitions"; is a good idea.
> #address-cells = <x>;
> #size-cells = <y>;
> partition@0 {
> ...;
> };
> };
Jonas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
