On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 11:03:48AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, David Gibson
> <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> If the only property needed is the partition table offset, it can be encoded
> >> in the unit-address, and the "reg" property:
> >>
> >> partitions {
> >>
> >> partition-table@xxxx {
> >> reg = <0xxxx ...>;
> >> ...
> >> };
> >>
> >> ...
> >> };
> >
> > Urgh.. and that's abusing the unit address.
>
> Why? The partition is part of the FLASH. In this respect, it doesn't differ
> from other hardcoded partitions using the same DT syntax.
> It would just have a compatible value indicating it's a partition
> table.
Ah.. yes, fair enough. I'd forgotten that the encoding of explicit
partitions in the device tree already established the address space
here as being the flash blocks. So, no, it's not an abuse of unit
address.
Doesn't help for partition table types which require scanning the
device, of course.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
