Hi Miquel, On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +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? > > This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is > also welcome. I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here. There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they conflict? Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could really use a little help. Thank you, Simon
