Hi, >> Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions >> in various ways. > > I've been thinking at the proper way to describe the binman partitions. > I am wondering if we should really extend the fixed-partitions > schema. This description is really basic and kind of supposed to remain > like that. Instead, I wonder if we should not just keep the binman > compatible alone, like many others already. This way it would be very clear > what is expected and allowed in both cases. I am thinking about > something like that: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml > > this file is also referenced there (but this patch does the same, which > is what I'd expect): > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml > > I'll let the binding maintainers judge whether they think it's > relevant, it's not a strong opposition. What is the overall goal here? To replace the current binman node which is usually contained in the -u-boot.dtsi files? If one is using binman to create an image, is it expected that one needs to adapt the DT in linux? Or will it still be a seperate -u-boot.dtsi? Because in the latter case I see that there will be conflicts because you have to overwrite the flash node. Or will it be a seperate node with all the information duplicated? Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful. -michael
