Hi Miquel,
On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 01:36, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 2 Oct 2023 11:49:40 -0600:
>
> > 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.
OK, yes I can do that. I suppose they would still remain backwards
compatible, due to the use of '$ref: partition.yaml#'
>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > +properties:
> > + compatible:
> > + const: binman
>
> Right now this does not fit (I believe) the example. But if we no
> longer extend fixed-partitions but just create binman.yaml, this will
> probably be enough.
OK
>
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > + - |
> > + partitions {
> > + compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions";
> > + #address-cells = <1>;
> > + #size-cells = <1>;
> > +
> > + partition@100000 {
> > + label = "u-boot";
> > + reg = <0x100000 0xf00000>;
> > + };
> > + };
Regards,
Simon
