On Wed, Oct 02, 2024 at 11:20:37AM +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 01:30:07PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
...
> >> this is an initial proposal to complete support for manually defining
> >> partition table.
> >>
> >> Some block device also implement boot1 and boot2 additional disk. Similar
> >> to the cmdline parser, these disk can have OF support using the
> >> "partitions-boot0" and "partitions-boot1" additional node.
> >>
> >> It's also completed support for declaring partition as read-only as this
> >> feature was introduced but never finished in the cmdline parser.
> >
> > I'm not sure I fully understood the problem you are trying to solve.
> > I have a device at hand that uses eMMC (and was produced almost ten years ago).
> > This device has a regular GPT on eMMC and no kernel needs to be patched for that.
> > So, why is it a problem for the mentioned OEMs to use standard GPT approach?
>
> For the user area (main block device), yes, a GPT can often be used, but
> not always. For the boot partitions, the particular SOC/cpu/bootrom may
> make it impossible to use a standard partition table, because the
> bootrom expects to find a bootloader at offset 0 on the active boot
> partition. In such a case, there's no way you can write a regular MBR or
> GPT, but it is nevertheless nice to have a machine-readable definition
> of which data goes where in the boot partitions. With these patches, one
> can do
>
> partitions-boot0 {
> partition@0 {
> label = "bootloader";
> reg = <0 0x...>; // 2 MB
> }
> partition@... {
> label = "device-data";
> reg = <...> // 4 MB
> }
> }
>
> and describe that layout.
I see now, on the device I mentioned the firmware is located on a boot
partition, so the user ones are being used for bootloader and the OS.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
