Hi Simon, sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Tue, 24 Oct 2023 14:40:54 -0700: > Hi Rob, > > On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 09:16, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2023 at 04:04:14PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Add two compatible for binman entries, as a starting point for the > > > schema. > > > > > > Note that, after discussion on v2, we decided to keep the existing > > > meaning of label so as not to require changes to existing userspace > > > software when moving to use binman nodes to specify the firmware > > > layout. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - Correct selection of multiple compatible strings > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > - Use compatible instead of label > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > .../mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml | 49 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 000000000000..35a320359ec1 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > + > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman-partition.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Binman partition > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > + > > > +select: false > > > > So this schema is never used. 'select: false' is only useful if > > something else if referencing the schema. > > OK. Is there a user guide to this somewhere? I really don't understand > it very well. The example-schema.yaml at the root of the dt-bindings directory is well commented. > > > +description: | > > > + This corresponds to a binman 'entry'. It is a single partition which holds > > > + data of a defined type. > > > + > > > +allOf: > > > + - $ref: /schemas/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml# > > > + > > > +properties: > > > + compatible: > > > + oneOf: > > > + - const: binman,entry # generic binman entry > > > > 'binman' is not a vendor. You could add it if you think that's useful. > > Probably not with only 1 case... > > I think it is best to use this for generic things implemented by > binman, rather than some other project. For example, binman supports a > 'fill' region. It also supports sections which are groups of > sub-entries. So we will likely start with half a dozen of these and it > will likely grow: binman,fill, binman,section, binman,files > > If we don't use 'binman', what do you suggest? > > > > > > + - items: > > > + - const: u-boot # u-boot.bin from U-Boot project > > > + - const: atf-bl31 # bl31.bin or bl31.elf from TF-A project > > > > Probably should use the new 'tfa' rather than old 'atf'. Is this the > > only binary for TFA? The naming seems inconsistent in that every image > > goes in (or can go in) a bl?? section. Why does TFA have it but u-boot > > doesn't? Perhaps BL?? is orthogonal to defining what is in each > > partition. Perhaps someone more familar with all this than I am can > > comment. > > From what I can tell TF-A can produce all sorts of binaries, of which > bl31 is one. U-Boot can also produce lots of binaries, but its naming > is different (u-boot, u-boot-spl, etc.). Bear in mind that U-Boot is > used on ARM, where this terminology is defined, and on x86 (for > example), where it is not. > > > > > Once you actually test this, you'll find you are specifying: > > > > compatible = "u-boot", "atf-bl31"; > > I don't understand that, sorry. I'll send a v5 and see if the problem goes away. For me this means the partition contains U-Boot and TF-A, which is probably not what you want. I believe Rob is saying that how you define the compatible property above does not match the examples below. Did you run make dt_binding_check? Also, do you really need to say which software project provides a component? Would using "bl31", "bl33", etc be enough? Or maybe you could have eg. "bl31-tf-a" and "bl31-u-boot-spl" (in this order) for clarity? This way one knows which stage a partition contains and also the software project which provided it. To be honest I still don't fully get where you want to go and I believe a more complete schema would probably help, with different examples, to catch what you need and why. > > > +additionalProperties: false > > > + > > > +examples: > > > + - | > > > + partitions { > > > + compatible = "binman"; > > > + #address-cells = <1>; > > > + #size-cells = <1>; > > > + > > > + partition@100000 { > > > + compatible = "u-boot"; > > > + reg = <0x100000 0xf00000>; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + partition@200000 { > > > + compatible = "atf-bl31"; > > > + reg = <0x200000 0x100000>; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > -- > > > 2.42.0.609.gbb76f46606-goog > > > > > Regards, > Simon Thanks, Miquèl
