Hi, I'll take a moment to hijack this and solicit comments on this old thread: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:09:50AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > - MTD partitioning unfortunately does not seem to have a widely used > method for identifying partitions from what's stored on the flash, > unlike block devices, so whatever we normally have in the partition > table has to be stored in DT. This really sucks, but I don't know > what else to do about it. I got sidetracked, but I have attempted previously to at least diminish the amount of MTD partitioning info that is stuck into DT: http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-December/064076.html That series effectively accepts the fact that there isn't a single standard or widely used method for identifying partitions, but it does allow for a description that's at least more flexible than a static list of partitions. I'd appreciate any thoughts on that. The main factors that stalled that were that (a) there was some vague discomfort over the use of the "compatible" property (I could probably have argued my case better there) and (b) I didn't have more time to pursue that. I may pick this up again when I get some time, especially if there are constructive suggestions. Brian -- 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
