On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:09 AM Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 10 September 2018 at 11:02, Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 4 September 2018 at 02:30, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:19:43PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote:
> >>> Describe how to use the BCM963XX ImageTag format in a mixed flash layout
> >>> environment.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> .../mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+)
> >>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..f4a444d69d9a
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
> >>> +Broadcom BCM963XX ImageTag Partition Container
> >>> +==============================================
> >>> +
> >>> +Some Broadcom BCM63XX SoC based devices contain additional, non discoverable
> >>> +partitions or non standard bootloader partition sizes. For these a mixed layout
> >>> +needs to be used with an explicit firmware partition.
> >>> +
> >>> +The BCM963XX ImageTag is a simple firmware header describing the offsets and
> >>> +sizes of the rootfs and kernel parts contained in the firmware.
> >>> +
> >>> +Required properties:
> >>> +- compatible : must be "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag"
> >>> +
> >>> +Examples:
> >>> +
> >>> +flash@1e000000 {
> >>> + compatible = "cfi-flash";
> >>> + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>;
> >>> + bank-width = <2>;
> >>> +
> >>> + partitions {
> >>> + compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>> +
> >>> + cfe@0 {
> >>> + reg = <0x0 0x10000>;
> >>> + read-only;
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> + firmware@10000 {
> >>> + reg = <0x10000 0x7d0000>;
> >>> + compatible = "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag";
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> + caldata@7e0000 {
> >>> + reg = <0x7e0000 0x10000>;
> >>> + read-only;
> >>> + };
> >>> +
> >>> + nvram@7f0000 {
> >>> + reg = <0x7f0000 0x10000>;
> >>> + };
> >>> + };
> >>> +};
> >>> +
> >>> +
> >>> +flash@1e000000 {
> >>> + compatible = "cfi-flash";
> >>> + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>;
> >>> + bank-width = <2>;
> >>> +
> >>> + partitions {
> >>> + compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >>> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >>> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Some devices use a flash chip with 64k erase blocks, some
> >>> + * use one with 128k erase blocks, so the vendor decided to
> >>> + * always use 128k as the firmware offset.
> >>> + */
> >>
> >> That's a interesting piece of info, but not really a reason to have a
> >> second example.
> >
> > Generally, I'd rather have one example too many than one too few, but
> > I can drop it if you think it's unnecessary. If I do that, can I add
> > your Ack then here as well for the v2?
>
> Of course a reviewed-by, not an Ack.
Yes.
Rob
