Hi Rob, On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 13:43, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 1:12 PM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 11:46, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:01:18AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 22 Sept 2023 at 10:00, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 1:45 PM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Binman[1] is a tool for creating firmware images. It allows you to > > > > > > combine various binaries and place them in an output file. > > > > > > > > > > > > Binman uses a DT schema to describe an image, in enough detail that > > > > > > it can be automatically built from component parts, disassembled, > > > > > > replaced, listed, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Images are typically stored in flash, which is why this binding is > > > > > > targeted at mtd. Previous discussion is at [2] [3]. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/stable/develop/package/binman.html > > > > > > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20230821180220.2724080-3-sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > [3] https://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg626149.html > > > > > > > > > > You missed: > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/pull/110 > > > > > > > > > > where I said: We certainly shouldn't duplicate the existing partitions > > > > > bindings. What's missing from them (I assume we're mostly talking > > > > > about "fixed-partitions" which has been around forever I think (before > > > > > me))? > > > > > > > > > > To repeat, unless there is some reason binman partitions conflict with > > > > > fixed-partitions, you need to start there and extend it. From what's > > > > > posted here, it neither conflicts nor needs extending. > > > > > > > > I think at this point I am just hopelessly confused. Have you taken a > > > > look at the binman schema? [1] > > > > > > Why do I need to? That's used for some tool and has nothing to do with a > > > device's DTB. However, I thought somewhere in this discussion you showed > > > it under a flash device node. > > > > Yes, that is the intent (under a flash node). > > > > > Then I care because then it overlaps with > > > what we already have for partitions. If I misunderstood that, then just > > > put your schema with your tool. Only users of the tool should care about > > > the tool's schema. > > > > OK. I believe that binman will fit into both camps, since its input is > > not necessarily fully formed. E.g. if you don't specify the offset of > > an entry, then it will be packed automatically. But the output is > > fully formed, in that Binman now knows the offset so can write it to > > the DT. > > I suppose it could take its own format as input and then write out > something different for the "on the device" format (i.e. > fixed-partitions). At least for the dynamic offsets, we may need > something allowed for binman input, but not allowed on device. In > general, there is support for partitions without addresses/offsets, > but only for partitions that have some other way to figure that out > (on disk partition info). > > There's also the image filename which doesn't really belong in the on > device partitions. So maybe the input and output schemas should be > separate. OK, I'll focus on the output schema for now. I suspect this will be a grey area though. As an example, if you replace a binary in the firmware, Binman can repack the firmware to make room, respecting the alignment and size constraints. So these need to be in the output schema somehow. > > > > > I saw this file, which seems to extend a partition. > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml > > > > > > IIRC, that's a different type where partition locations are stored in > > > the flash, so we don't need location and size in DT. > > > > OK. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I was assuming that I should create a top-level compatible = "binman" > > > > node, with subnodes like compatible = "binman,bl31-atf", for example. > > > > I should use the compatible string to indicate the contents, right? > > > > > > Yes for subnodes, and we already have some somewhat standard ones for > > > "u-boot" and "u-boot-env". Though historically, "label" was used. > > > > Binman has common properties for all entries, including "compress" > > which sets the compression algorithm. > > I see no issue with adding that. It seems useful and something missing > in the existing partition schemas. OK I sent a patch with that. > > > So perhaps I should start by defining a new binman,bl31-atf which has > > common properties from an "binman,entry" definition? > > I don't understand the binman prefix. The contents are ATF (or TF-A > now). Who wrote it to the flash image is not relevant. Are you suggesting just "atf-bl31", or "arm,atf-bl31" ? Or should we change it to "tfa-bl31"? > > We already have some compatibles in use. We should reuse them if > possible. Not sure about TF-A though. OK. Regards, Simon
