On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:21:04PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > On 24.01.2022 23:12, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 11:02:24PM +0100, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > > On 20.01.2022 21:26, Ansuel Smith wrote: > > > > Document new dynamic-partitions node used to provide an of node for > > > > partition registred at runtime by parsers. This is required for nvmem > > > > system to declare and detect nvmem-cells. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml | 59 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..7528e49f2d7e > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,59 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/dynamic-partitions.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: Dynamic partitions > > > > + > > > > +description: | > > > > + This binding can be used on platforms which have partitions registered at > > > > + runtime by parsers or partition table present on the flash. Example are > > > > + partitions declared from smem parser or cmdlinepart. This will create an > > > > + of node for these dynamic partition where systems like Nvmem can get a > > > > + reference to register nvmem-cells. > > > > + > > > > + The partition table should be a node named "dynamic-partitions". > > > > + Partitions are then defined as subnodes. Only the label is required > > > > + as any other data will be taken from the parser. > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > + > > > > +properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + const: dynamic-partitions > > > > + > > > > +patternProperties: > > > > + "@[0-9a-f]+$": > > > > + $ref: "partition.yaml#" > > > > + > > > > +additionalProperties: true > > > > + > > > > +examples: > > > > + - | > > > > + partitions { > > > > + compatible = "qcom,smem"; > > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + dynamic-partitions { > > > > + compatible = "dynamic-partitions"; > > > > + > > > > + art: art { > > > > + label = "0:art"; > > > > + read-only; > > > > + compatible = "nvmem-cells"; > > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > > + > > > > + macaddr_art_0: macaddr@0 { > > > > + reg = <0x0 0x6>; > > > > + }; > > > > + > > > > + macaddr_art_6: macaddr@6 { > > > > + reg = <0x6 0x6>; > > > > + }; > > > > + }; > > > > + }; > > > > > > First of all: I fully support such a feature. I need it for Broadom > > > platforms that use "brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions" dynamic partitions. > > > In my case bootloader partition is created dynamically (it doesn't have > > > const offset and size). It contains NVMEM data however that needs to be > > > described in DT. > > > > > > This binding however looks loose and confusing to me. > > > > > > > I agree. > > > > > First of all did you really mean to use "qcom,smem"? My first guess is > > > you meant "qcom,smem-part". > > > > > > > Yes sorry, I was referring to the smem parser qcom,smem-part > > > > > Secondly can't we have partitions defined just as subnodes of the > > > partitions { ... }; node? > > > > > > > I would love to use it. My only concern is that due to the fact > > that we have to support legacy partition declaring, wonder if this could > > create some problem. I'm referring to declaring fixed partition without > > using any compatible/standard binding name. > > Legacy partitioning won't kick in if you have "partitions" with > "compatible" string. We're safe here. Just checked to be sure. > Oh ok then the dynamic partition compatible stuff is not needed. To make sure I will change the "connect" function part and skip the of_node assign if a compatible is not present. (The of_node assign should be done only with the nvmem-cell compatible currently.) > > > I remember we improved that with the introduction of the nvmem binding > > by making the fixed-partition compatible mandatory. But I would like to > > have extra check. Wonder if to be on the safe part we can consider > > appending to the "dynamic parser" a compatible like "dynamic-partitions" > > and use your way to declare them (aka keeping the dynamic-partition and > > removing the extra parallel partitions list) > > > > Feel free to tell me it's just a stupid and unnecessary idea. I just > > have fear to introduce regression in the partition parsing logic. > > I'm confused. I think all dynamic partitioners already have a > "compatible" set. Now that I think about it you are right. If a dynamic partition is present in the system, a compatible must be present to use the correct parser. And as I said up, all the nvmem cells should have the correct compatible. > > Can you post an example of DT binging you described above, please? Was thinking something like this. But not needed. partitions { compatible = "brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions", "dynamic-partitions"; partition-0 { compatible = "nvmem-cells"; label = "boot"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; mac: macaddr@0 { reg = <0x100 0x6>; }; } }; So in short, a scheme like this should NOT be handled/should not have of_node assigned. (and is actually very wrong) partitions { compatible = "brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions"; partition-0 { label = "boot"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; mac: macaddr@0 { reg = <0x100 0x6>; }; } }; -- Ansuel
