Hi,
I'm still not sure why that compatible is needed. Also I'd need to
change
the label which might break user space apps looking for that specific
name.
Also, our board might have u-boot/spl or u-boot/spl/bl31/bl32, right
now
that's something which depends on an u-boot configuration variable,
which
then enables or disables binman nodes in the -u-boot.dtsi. So in linux
we only have that "bootloader" partition, but there might be either
u-boot+spl or u-boot+spl+bl31+bl32.
Honestly, I'm really not sure this should go into a device tree.
I think we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. I thought
that the decision was that the label should indicate the contents.
If you have multiple things in a partition then it would become a
'section' in Binman's terminology. Either the label programmatically
describes what is inside or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways.
What do you suggest?
As Rob pointed out earlier, it's just a user-facing string. I'm a bit
reluctant to use it programatically.
Taking my example again, the string "bootloader" is sufficient for a
user. He doesn't care if it's u-boot with spl or u-boot with tfa, or
even coreboot. It just says, "in this partition is the bootloader".
If you have an "bootloader" image you can flash it there.
If it has a label "u-boot" and I want to switch to coreboot, will
it have to change to "coreboot"? I really don't think this is practical,
you are really putting software configuration into the device tree.
At present it seems you have the image described in two places - one
is the binman node and the other is the partitions node. I would like
to unify these.
And I'm not sure that will work for all the corner cases :/
If you keep the binman section seperate from the flash partition
definition you don't have any of these problems, although there is
some redundancy:
- you only have compatible = "binman", "fixed-partition", no further
compatibles are required
- you don't have any conflicts with the current partition descriptions
- you could even use the labels, because binman is the (only?) user
But of course you need to find a place where to put your node.
What does user space do with the partition labels?
I'm not sure. Also I'm not sure if it really matters, I just wanted to
point out, that you'll force users to change it.
-michael
>> 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.
Not sure if that will fly.
I can't find it anyway. There is somelike like that in
simple-framebuffer with the 'display' property.
Regards,
SImon
