Hi, * Pandita, Vikram <vikram.pandita@xxxxxx> [2009-08-27 19:16:27]: > Why? > > I know of an implementation by Vimal Singh that introduces a common > flash file for Zoom1 and Zoom2. > There is reuse of code there. Thanks for your comments. There are indeed other implentations around using a common flash file for Zoom1 and Zoom2 boards. I didn't know of this specific implementation by Vimal Singh, but we use something very similar internally. Since linux-omap didn't had any MTD partitions definitions for either boards, I decided to go for the smallest change: only partitions for Zoom2. > Please discuss and get a converged approach on handling NAND > partitions on Zoom1 and Zoom2. Agreed. We should use a common file for Zoom1 and Zoom2 flash, with Zoom2 specific partition sizes. But I'm not sure I deserve the right to propose Vimal Singh's patch (by the way, why hasn't it been merged in the linux-omap tree?). How should we proceed then? > Also the Systerm/User/Cache partition definitions are more from Android perspective. > > Given that each system may have a different NAND partition requirement, > have you looked at bootargs passing the MTD partition info: Eg: > > mtdparts=omap2-nand.0:512k@0(xloader),\ > 1536k@512k(bootloader),\ > 29m@2m(kernel),\ > 160m@32m(system),\ > 32m@192m(userdata),\ > 32m@224m(cache) Yes, I am aware of the mtdparts command line arguments, which works great. I think a "default", sensible partition layout for the Zoom2 would be nice though. - Maxime -- Maxime Petazzoni Linux kernel & software dev MontaVista Software, Inc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
