Hi Daniel, On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:23:20PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote: > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000000000..df561dd33cbc9 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/block/partition.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Partition on a block device > + > +description: | > + This binding describes a partition on a block storage device. > + Partitions may be matched by a combination of partition number, name, > + and UUID. > + > +maintainers: > + - Daniel Golle <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + > +properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: '^block-partition-.+$' > + > + partnum: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32 > + description: > + Matches partition by number if present. > + > + partname: > + $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string > + description: > + Matches partition by PARTNAME if present. In the mtd world we originally had the partition nodes directly under the hardware device node as well. That was changed to put a partitions subnode between the hardware device node and the partitions. >From fe2585e9c29a ("doc: dt: mtd: support partitions in a special 'partitions' subnode"): To avoid conflict with other drivers using subnodes of the mtd device create only one ofpart-specific node rather than any number of arbitrary partition subnodes. Does it make sense to do the same for block devices? Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
