On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 11:02:05AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 09:57:52PM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 12:32:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Ansuel Smith wrote:
> > > > Document new partition nodes that declare only the label instead of the
> > > > reg 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.
> > > >
> > > > With these special partitions, the reg / offset is not required.
> > > > The label binding is used to match the partition allocated by the
> > > > parser at runtime and the parser will provide reg and offset of the mtd.
> > > >
> > > > NVMEM will use the data from the parser and provide the NVMEM cells
> > > > declared in the DTS, "connecting" the dynamic partition with a
> > > > static declaration of cells in them.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ansuel Smith <ansuelsmth@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml | 16 ++++++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml
> > > > index e1ac08064425..bff6fb980e6b 100644
> > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml
> > > > @@ -11,6 +11,13 @@ description: |
> > > > relative offset and size specified. Depending on partition function extra
> > > > properties can be used.
> > > >
> > > > + A partition may be dynamically allocated by a specific parser at runtime.
> > > > + In this specific case, the label is required instead of the reg.
> > > > + This is used to assign an OF node to the dynamiccally allocated partition
> > > > + so that subsystem like NVMEM can provide an OF node and declare NVMEM cells.
> > > > + The OF node will be assigned only if the partition label declared match the
> > > > + one assigned by the parser at runtime.
> > > > +
> > > > maintainers:
> > > > - Rafał Miłecki <rafal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > @@ -22,6 +29,8 @@ properties:
> > > > label:
> > > > description: The label / name for this partition. If omitted, the label
> > > > is taken from the node name (excluding the unit address).
> > > > + With dynamically allocated partition the label is required and won't
> > > > + fallback to the node name.
> > >
> > > Generally, label is never required being something for humans rather
> > > than the s/w to consume. I don't see any reason why we can't still use
> > > the node name (with 'partition-' stripped off).
> > >
> >
> > How to enforce the use of 'partition-'? Should the driver then check the
> > node name and reject any wrong node name (and return error)?
>
> The schema can do it either in the parent (of partition nodes) schema or
> with $nodename 'property'.
>
> $nodename:
> oneOf:
> - pattern: '^.*@.*$'
> - pattern: '^partition-.*$'
>
> or:
>
> if:
> not:
> required:
> - reg
> then:
> properties:
> $nodename:
> pattern: '^partition-.*$'
>
>
> The latter is a bit clearer on the intent I think.
>
Hi, I'm testing this but I'm having some difficulties.
I put your second solution in partition.yaml
But I notice that if for example qcom,smem-part.yaml have
patternProperties:
"^partition3-[0-9a-z]+$":
$ref: partition.yaml#
Then the $nodename is ignored (or overwtitten?). Can't find a correct
way to declare a patternProperties that ref another schema.
I'm trying and searching a way to ref the partition.yaml but I can't
find anything. Can you help with this? It does seem uselss putting a
limitation in partition.yaml if then someone can just set a different
one in the parser Documentation.
> > > If the purpose is to define what the partition contains, then
> > > 'compatible' is the right thing for that.
> > >
> >
> > Introducing a compatible means creating another scheme I think or we can
> > add that special compatible in the partition scheme?
>
> It would be another schema. You could make 'compatible' required here
> perhaps, but maybe there's a use for an empty node?
>
> Rob
--
Ansuel
