> Am 25.07.2018 um 10:33 schrieb Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:18:28AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >> >>> Am 25.07.2018 um 10:07 schrieb Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 08:58:41AM +0200, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote: >>>> Vendor defined U-Boot has changed the partition scheme a while ago: >>>> >>>> * kernel partition 6MB >>>> * file system partition uses the remainder up to end of the NAND >>>> * increased size of the environment partition (to get an OneNAND compatible base address) >>>> * shrink the U-Boot partition >>>> >>>> Let's be compatible (e.g. Debian kernel built from upstream). >>> >>> That, in fact, is breaking compatibility. >> >> With what? Nobody is using the old u-boot partition scheme any more >> (it is >5 years old). >> >>> So once you are touching this >>> what about relying on partitioning provided by bootloader just to prevent >>> something like this happening again? >> >> Well, we define what compatible means here (since we are the vendor). >> And people complain with us. We simply recommend them to upgrade the >> boot-loader. > > Fair enough. Suggestion was to remove partitioning scheme from DTB alltogether > and let U-Boot provide one. But you being vendor you decide, of course :) > (I'd use only two partitions: MLO and UBI, latter one with BCH8, and store > everything in UBI volumes. That's a bit more flexible approach) Yes, that is a good goal for a future setup and would of course be better. Like U-Boot already provides the memory layout for RAM. Hopefully, someone will work out patches for u-boot plus kernel (which is always painful to keep these two in sync and tested). But I don't want to do that now. BR and thanks, Nikolaus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
