Hi Miquel, On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 00:50, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:07:38 -0700: > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough > > > > > to make progress. > > > > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable? > > > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs. > > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of > > fixed-partition. > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally > misunderstand his answer? > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to > understand all binman's output. > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with. I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman. So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman' schema, but I should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition schema? Regards, Simon
