Hi Rob,
Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:13:41 -0600:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 06:15:04PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > From: Bernhard Frauendienst <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > The main use case to concatenate MTD devices is probably SPI-NOR
> > flashes where the number of address bits is limited to 24, which can
> > access a range of 16MiB. Board manufacturers might want to double the
> > SPI storage size by adding a second flash asserted thanks to a second
> > chip selects which enhances the addressing capabilities to 25 bits,
> > 32MiB. Having two devices for twice the size is great but without more
> > glue, we cannot define partition boundaries spread across the two
> > devices. This is the gap mtd-concat intends to address.
> >
> > There are two options to describe concatenated devices:
> > 1/ One flash chip is described in the DT with two CS;
> > 2/ Two flash chips are described in the DT with one CS each, a virtual
> > device is also created to describe the concatenation.
> >
> > Solution 1/ presents at least 3 issues:
> > * The hardware description is abused;
> > * The concatenation only works for SPI devices (while it could be
> > helpful for any MTD);
> > * It would require a lot of rework in the SPI core as most of the
> > logic assumes there is and there always will be only one CS per
> > chip.
>
> This seems ok if all the devices are identical.
This is not an option for Mark and I agree with him as we are faking
the reality: the two devices we want to virtually concatenate may be
two physically different devices. Binding them as one is lying.
> > Solution 2/ also has caveats:
> > * The virtual device has no hardware reality;
> > * Possible optimizations at the hardware level will be hard to enable
> > efficiently (ie. a common direct mapping abstracted by a SPI
> > memories oriented controller).
>
> Something like this may be necessary if data is interleaved rather than
> concatinated.
This is something that is gonna happen too, it is called "dual
parallel".
> Solution 3
> Describe each device and partition separately and add link(s) from one
> partition to the next
>
> flash0 {
> partitions {
> compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> concat-partition = <&flash1_partitions>;
> ...
> };
> };
>
> flash1 {
> flash1_partition: partitions {
> compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> ...
> };
> };
I honestly don't see how this is different as solution 2/? In one case
we describe the partition concatenation in one subnode as a "link", in
the other we create a separate node to describe the link. Are you
strongly opposed as solution 2/? From a pure conceptual point of view,
is it really different than 3/?
Thanks,
Miquèl
