Hi Michael, On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 11:17, 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. > > 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. My intent is to make it compatible, so wouldn't it make sense to have binman as the first compatible, then falling back to fixed-partitions as the second? > > >> 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? I thought there was a way to link the partition nodes and the device using a property, without having the partition info as a subnode of the device. But I may have imagined it as I cannot find it now. So yes, it will be a subnode of the eMMC device. Regards, Simon
