On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > + > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > +--- > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > + > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > + > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > + - Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > + > > > > > +description: | > > > > > + The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware > > > > > + from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some > > > > > + extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to > > > > > + avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a > > > > > + particular purpose. > > > > > + > > > > > + Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process, > > > > > + such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses > > > > > + these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property > > > > > + (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested > > > > > + in the input. > > > > > + > > > > > + Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their > > > > > + purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a > > > > > + firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough > > > > > + information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if > > > > > + needed. > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking. > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this > > > should work OK. > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'. > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the > wrong path? Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending fixed-partitions. Rob
