Le jeudi 02 novembre 2017 à 13:39 +0100, Boris Brezillon a écrit :
> +Nicolas
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> On Thu, 02 Nov 2017 12:17:16 +0100
> Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've got an at91sam9g35-cm based board, with 4 partition on the
> > spi-
> > dataflas and 5 partitions on the NAND flash.
> > Before commit 1004a2977bdc ("ARM: dts: at91: Switch to the new NAND
> > bindings"),
> > the NAND partitions were mtd0-4 and spi-dataflash partitions mtd5-
> > 8.
> >
> > Since commit 1004a2977bdc ("ARM: dts: at91: Switch to the new NAND
> > bindings"),
> > the spi-dataflash partitions are discovered before the NAND
> > partitions.
> > So NAND partition became mtd4-8 and spi-dataflash partition mtd0-3.
> >
> > This broke some script that relied on the mtd numbering.
> >
> > Updating those scripts to rely on the mtd device name instead of
> > number is not really a problem. The real problem is when an older
> > script using mtd numbering is run on the new system : I expect dead
> > kittens everywhere !
>
> Crap! That was one of the thing I was afraid of when changing the
> binding: probe order has an impact on ids assigned to MTD devs, and
> since things are not defined at the same place in the DT, it changes
> the probe order.
>
> >
> > So, I'd like to know if there's a way to force the older numbering
> > ?
>
> Reverting the patches is probably the easiest way (and it's easily
> backportable). Now, if we want to switch to the new bindings at some
> point we'll need to support DT aliases for mtd devs:
>
> aliases {
> mtdX = &flashpartN;
> mtdY = &flashdevM;
> };
>
> The problem with this solution is that it only works if all
> partitions
> are defined in the DT, which is not always the case (they can be
> defined
> on the command line with mtdparts=).
Yes, and if they are different from the ones declared in
at91sam9x5cm.dtsi, they are likely defined with mtdparts=, since AFAIK,
we can't remove a declared partitionning.
I'll disable the ebi and switch back to the old binding in my dts for
now.
>
> > (I tried poking around the DTS without succès).
> >
> > any idea ?
>
> I don't have a perfect solution, but the problem you report clearly
> shows that relying on MTD numbering is unsafe and should be avoided.
Clearly, but who doesn't ? ;)
Thanks !
Richard.
>
> Regards,
>
> Boris
>
> >
> > regards,
> > Richard.
--
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
