* Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [170106 10:21]: > On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 08:14:22AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Adam Ford <aford173@xxxxxxxxx> [170106 08:06]: > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Teresa Remmet <t.remmet@xxxxxxxxx> [170106 01:28]: > > > >> Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2017, 09:56 -0800 schrieb Brian Norris: > > > >> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 09:18:45AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > >> > > I'm suggesting we leave the kernel nodes empty and let u-boot > > > >> > > populate them, so maybe you guys can discuss this on the related > > > >> > > lists. > > > >> > That's an option. I've worked with platforms that did something like > > > >> > this, and that's really one of the only ways you can handle putting > > > >> > partition information in the device tree. You're really hamstringing > > > >> > yourself when you put all the partition information in the device > > > >> > tree. > > > >> > And it's just dumb once that gets codified in the kernel source tree. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> In our case the bootloader does pass the partition table to the kernel. > > > >> So it gets overwritten anyway. This was just more for backup, > > > >> if someone uses a different bootloader. But I'm fine with removing the > > > >> nand partition table completely from the kernel device tree. > > > >> Same with the SPI nor partition table. > > Ah, well if these are essentially just a backup, then why do they need > changed at all? To be more precise about my "dumb" statement: it seems > unwise to assume that all systems using a particular board will have the > same partition layout. So *relying* on the in-kernel DTS(I) files to > have a universal partition layout would likely cause problems. > > I don't have much problem with keeping a sample layout there as a > backup, if you find it useful. But it seems like it will be hard to > argue that you can ever change it in the future. > > Anyway, the ofpart mechanism is there, and it's fine to use it, but it's > up to you to understand the implications and manage the backwards > compatibility problems :) > > > > >> I will send patches for this. > > > > > > > > OK thanks! Also thank you Brian for your comments. > > > > > > > > > > Tony - I tested leaving the partition info as-is with the updates from > > > the bootloader and it works. Would you prefer that I match Brian and > > > remove the partition table completely, or should I just leave my board > > > alone? > > > > > > I am good either way. > > > > OK. How about let's remove the partitions from kernel for v4.11 as > > clean-up then for cases where the bootloader might change them? > > I don't have much stake in this but...if there were any systems using > the backup layout (i.e., the in-kernel partition layout), wouldn't that > break them? Is there a problem with just leaving them alone? Yeah I guess it depends on the device and it's bootloader versions. Regards, Tony -- 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
