Hi Ron, Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:49:54 +0200: > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:16:23 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 09:41:48 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi ron, > > > > > > ron minnich <rminnich@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on Mon, 30 Mar 2020 08:53:22 > > > -0700: > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:27 AM Miquel Raynal > > > > <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Would it be hard to support an extra ':' after the MTD device name? > > > > > This way would would allow anything inside the optional '(' ')' but > > > > > would keep the trailing ':'. > > > > > > > > > > toTay: > > > > > mtdparts=name:part1,part2 > > > > > > > > > > So: > > > > > mtdparts=(0000:00:1f.5):25165824(BIOS),-(squashfs) > > > > > > > > > > > > I thought about that ':' too. It does add a bit more to the code, and > > > > a bit more in the way of error cases. I always worry, when code is > > > > going into flash, > > > > about errors where something looks close to right but is wrong. (says > > > > the person who just typed it instead of is a few times :-) > > > > > > > > What if we did this: > > > > mtdparts=[0000:00:1f.5]25165824(BIOS),-(squashfs) > > > > > > > > Is the "]" 'enough different' that we do not need the ':'? > > > > > > > > I kind of like the [] better anyway as it makes the mtdid stand out a > > > > bit more from the part names? But is it enough that we don't need the > > > > ':'? Would you still prefer the () as opposed to the []? > > > > > > I like the [] as well, maybe more than () because at least it does not > > > conflict with the partition names. But I really prefer keeping the : if > > > the code is still readable. > > > > > > It is much easier to explain to people : "if you have a : in the name, > > > enclose it with []". > > > > Sorry to chime in so late in the discussion, but I wonder if any of > > that is necessary. Can't we just split the string per device (split > > strings every time we see a ';'), and then find the last ':' in each of > > those strings and consider everything before that last ':' to be the MTD > > name. That should work even if the MTD name contains one or more ':'. > > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly fine with intel enclosing the PCI > > address in [] to make it clearer, but I see that other drivers use ':' > > in their MTD device names (the atmel raw NAND controller driver to name > > one), so I think it'd be good to make the mtd part parsing robust to > > this use case. > > I just gave it a try and the following patch should solve the problem > (only compile-tested). As I said previously, it doesn't prevent you from > enclosing the PCI address in [] if you think it's clearer, but I think > the problem should be addressed in the cmdline parser anyway. > > --->8--- > From 08b30597dd73efd9c4c8d1906ab02a9540875419 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 11:44:50 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] mtd: parser: cmdline: Support MTD names containing one or > more colons > > Looks like some drivers define MTD names with a colon in it, thus > making mtdpart= parsing impossible. Let's fix the parser to gracefully > handle that case: the last ':' in a partition definition sequence is > considered instead of the first one. > > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/mtd/parsers/cmdlinepart.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/parsers/cmdlinepart.c b/drivers/mtd/parsers/cmdlinepart.c > index c86f2db8c882..0625b25620ca 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/parsers/cmdlinepart.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/parsers/cmdlinepart.c > @@ -218,12 +218,29 @@ static int mtdpart_setup_real(char *s) > struct cmdline_mtd_partition *this_mtd; > struct mtd_partition *parts; > int mtd_id_len, num_parts; > - char *p, *mtd_id; > + char *p, *mtd_id, *semicol; > + > + /* > + * Replace the first ';' by a NULL char so strrchr can work > + * properly. > + */ > + semicol = strchr(s, ';'); > + if (semicol) > + *semicol = '\0'; > > mtd_id = s; > > - /* fetch <mtd-id> */ > - p = strchr(s, ':'); > + /* > + * fetch <mtd-id>. We use strrchr to ignore all ':' that could > + * be present in the MTD name, only the last one is interpreted > + * as an <mtd-id>/<part-definition> separator. > + */ > + p = strrchr(s, ':'); > + > + /* Restore the ';' now. */ > + if (semicol) > + *semicol = ';'; > + > if (!p) { > pr_err("no mtd-id\n"); > return -EINVAL; This is also the approach I like the most. It avoids modifying the syntax on the cmdline (no change in Bootloaders needed) and we don't have to change the parser of a driver every time a colon is in the name. I would like to drop "mtd: parsers: support '[]' fir ud ub mtdparts" as welle as "mtd: spi-nor: controllers: intel-spi: Add support for command line partitions", what do you think? Thanks, Miquèl ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/