Hi Michael, On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 05:35, Michael Walle <mwalle@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? The goal is simply to have a full binding for firmware layout, such that firmware images can be created, examined and updated. The -u-boot.dtsi files are a stopgap while we sort out a real binding. They should eventually go away. > > Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful. Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the example? Regards, Simon
