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.
You haven't answered whether this node should be a seperate binman
node - or if you'll reuse the existing flash (partitions) node(s) and
add any missing property there. If it's the latter, I don't think
compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions"; is correct.
Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.
Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the
example?
Like a complete (stripped) DTS. Right now I just see how the individual
node looks like. But with a complete example DTS, my question from above
would have been answered.
What if a board uses eMMC to store the firmware binaries? Will that then
be a subnode to the eMMC device?
-michael
