Hi Christopher,
On 06/07/2016 12:45 PM, Christopher Spinrath wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> On 06/07/2016 10:38 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>> Hi Christopher,
>>
>> On 06/06/2016 01:37 PM, Christopher Spinrath wrote:
>>> Hi Igor,
>>>
>>> On 06/06/2016 08:49 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>
>>>> On 06/05/2016 08:32 PM, Christopher Spinrath wrote:
>>>>> Hi Igor,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/05/2016 06:43 PM, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Christopher,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/26/2016 02:37 PM, Igor Grinberg wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/26/2016 12:50 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Igor,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2016, 11:50 +0300 schrieb Igor Grinberg:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Lucas,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for reviewing the patch(es).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/23/2016 12:03 PM, Lucas Stach wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Am Montag, den 23.05.2016, 00:47 +0200 schrieb
>>>>>>>>>> christopher.spinrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Christopher Spinrath <christopher.spinrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +&ecspi1 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + fsl,spi-num-chipselects = <2>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + cs-gpios = <&gpio2 30 0>, <&gpio3 19 0>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ecspi1>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + flash: m25p80@0 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + #size-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + compatible = "st,m25p", "jedec,spi-nor";
>>>>>>>>>>> + spi-max-frequency = <20000000>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + partition@0 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + label = "uboot";
>>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0xc0000>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + partition@c0000 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + label = "uboot environment";
>>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0xc0000 0x40000>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> + partition@100000 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + label = "reserved";
>>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0x100000 0x100000>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Partition layouts don't belong in the upstream DT, as it a device
>>>>>>>>>> configuration thing. Please kep them in the bootloader/firmware and make
>>>>>>>>>> this one pass the partition layout to the kernel.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't completely agree with this.
>>>>>>>>> We have lots of partition layouts in the upstream DT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, we don't. At least not for the i.MX6. There are some for the earlier
>>>>>>>> i.MX boards, but IMO it's wrong to put device configuration into the
>>>>>>>> upstream DT. Let's not start doing this again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not?
>>>>>>> For i.MX6 there are 2 boards that have the partitioning scheme.
>>>>>>> I'm not considering this a device configuration, but rather
>>>>>>> a default partitioning layout/scheme.
>>>>>>> Current case is for the firmware storage device that is not likely
>>>>>>> to change.
>>>>>>> Moreover, a DT is not really a part of the kernel, but lays along the kernel
>>>>>>> sources for convenience and simplicity (at least IIRC as it was decided
>>>>>>> about 5 years ago). It is more a part of the firmware for a device, than
>>>>>>> an upstream kernel source code.
>>>>>>> I think it is only a meter of time when Linus will decide that he does not
>>>>>>> want it inside the kernel anymore...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Moreover, this is the default layout and changing it, will
>>>>>>>>> result in incompatibilities and also might result in device "bricking".
>>>>>>>>> Those can be changed from the boot loader in case you need those
>>>>>>>>> the other way around.
>>>>>>>>> Another question of mine is, why should you?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Partition layout is device configuration, which is governed by the
>>>>>>>> device firmware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet again, DT is a part of device firmware.
>>>>>>> Moreover, the firmware (in that case U-Boot), can be configured
>>>>>>> using the very same DT code, so not having this in, might force
>>>>>>> various w/a and hacks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By not having the partition layout in the upstream DT
>>>>>>>> people are forced to set it from the firmware, which is exactly the
>>>>>>>> right thing to do, weather or not you plan to change it at any time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I might be ignorant, sorry for that.
>>>>>>> Why? Why is it right and why would you want to force people to do that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No answer?
>>>>>> I think it is worth keeping this as a default firmware layout.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was not happy removing the layout at first, too. However, they are
>>>>> added rarely (at least recently) and the binding documentation [1]
>>>>> states that they shall only be added if there are "strong conventions".
>>>>
>>>> Well, not exactly, it says:
>>>>
>>>> "Partitions can be represented by sub-nodes of an mtd device. This can be used
>>>> on platforms which have strong conventions about which portions of a flash are
>>>> used for what purposes, but which don't use an on-flash partition table such
>>>> as RedBoot."
>>>>
>>>> In my understanding, "can" is _not_ exactly "shall only".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Definitely, "state" was the wrong word here - sorry about that. But it's
>>> how I interpret the documentation. It is the only one I have seen that
>>> specifies an allowed use case. So for me it is more like "deny all,
>>> allow ...".
>>
>> That moves the discussion to what "strong conventions" are?
>> But you have already removed the layout, so this is meaningless.
>
> Yes, as I said I want to have the non controversial stuff in first.
> Afterwards, we can submit more controversial patches (per feature).
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, it is really easy to pass the layout via firmware/u-boot.
>>>>> Unfortunately, the u-boot provided by CompuLab does not have the
>>>>> mtdparts commands built-in but the layout can be passed via cmdline as
>>>>> well. This seems more flexible to me (and I consider this to be good).
>>>>
>>>> That means you need a different version of U-Boot if you want to use
>>>> an upstream kernel, or you need to play the bootargs games, or just leave
>>>> it a "black box".
>>>> So currently, from the three options above, the "black box" is chosen, right?
>>>> That's a pity, because I'd like things to be open...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, It wouldn't be the first ARM device where the newest/upstream
>>> u-boot is required. Actually, you already have to use the newest version
>>> if you want to use the igb ethernet.
>>
>> You mean, igb in U-Boot, right?
>> Unless I'm missing something, it should work just fine in Linux with
>> the same U-Boot Compulab provides.
>>
> I mean in U-Boot and Linux (and with "newest U-Boot" I refer to the one
> provided by CompuLab; as far as I know there is no upstream U-Boot
> support for the Utilite).
Not exactly...
board/compulab/cm_fx6 is the one.
That is off topic for this list, so we'd better go off list on this.
> Although it seems to work "by accident".
:-) no accidents here...
> The
> custom CompuLab code fails to put the mac address in the devicetree but
> stores it in the correct environment variable such that the upstream
> U-Boot magic can take over.
Interesting... off list.
>
> Anyway, are there any U-Boot updates scheduled (by CompuLab)? And is
> there a way to contribute/discuss changes?
Of course. You have my email.
>
>>>
>>> Currently, IMO the most convenient way (for distributions) would be to
>>> ship a boot.scr file changing the bootargs (which is not a "black box"
>>> but a configuration file people are used to). If you don't want to mess
>>> with bootargs/cmdline it is also possible to add the partition table via
>>> boot.scr (or on-flash environment) with the fdt command; in this case it
>>> wouldn't even be hidden in the u-boot binary (and no u-boot upgrade is
>>> required to implement this).
>>
>> That is exactly what I said: "to play the bootargs games".
>>
>>>
>>> But yes, if someone wants to use the upstream kernel the boot.scr has to
>>> be there; but IMO this is something distributions/people providing
>>> binary files have to take care about. People using their own kernel
>>> should take into account that they have to provide a bootloader config.
>>
>> Yep. While if we provide the default layout in DT, all the above would be
>> unnecessary.
>>
>
> On the other hand, it will be very hard to change it afterwards. Maybe
> someone wants to upstream the U-Boot support and they insist on a
> different partition layout (e.g. uboot-failsafe) ...
U-Boot support is upstream already since v2014.10.
> I never got why people decided to go without a on-device partition table
> for most raw flash chips. It is a pity that it has to be hard coded in
> the firmware/kernel/whatever.
Right. I agree completely. I guess there are some historical reasons
back to the MTD subsystem 'invention'.
>
>> So, if one will neither use the latest U-Boot, nor play the bootargs
>> games, the flash will stay a kind of "black box" - and that's a pity.
>>
>
> As I stated before, IMHO using the latest U-Boot is no problem and is
> already required (for full support).
>
> Cheers,
> Christopher
>
--
Regards,
Igor.
--
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
