RE: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: Add bindings for describing concatinated MTD devices

["Mahapatra, Amit Kumar" <amit.kumar-mahapatra@xxxxxxx>]

> > Sorry about that. I am redefining both the flash nodes here with
> > proper indentation.
> >
> > flash@0 {
> > 	compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> > 	...
> > 	partitions {
> > 		compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> > 		concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >
> > 		flash0_partition: partition@0 {
> > 			label = "part0_0";
> > 			reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > };
> >
> > flash@1 {
> > 	compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> > 	...
> > 	partitions {
> > 		compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> > 		concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >
> > 		flash1_partition: partition@0 {
> > 			label = "part0_1";
> > 			reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > };
> >
> >>
> >> >                 compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >> >                         concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >> >                         flash0_partition: partition@0 {
> >> >                                 label = "part0_0";
> >> >                                 reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> >> >                         }
> >> >                 }
> >> > }
> >> > flash@1 {
> >> >         compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> >> >         ...
> >> >                 partitions {
> >> >                 compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >> >                         concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >> >                         flash1_partition: partition@0 {
> >> >                                 label = "part0_1";
> >> >                                 reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> >> >                         }
> >> >                 }
> >> > }
> >>
> >> This approach has a limitation I didn't think about before: you
> >> cannot use anything else than fixed partitions as partition parser.
> >
> > Yes, that's correct—it won't function when partitions are defined via
> > the command line. In my opinion, we should start by adding support for
> > fixed partitions, add comments in code stating the same. If needed, we
> > can later extend the support to dynamic partitions as well.
> 
> New thought. What if it was a pure fixed-partition capability? That's actually what we

Yes, I agree—it’s better to present it as a purely fixed-partition capability.


Regards,
Amit
> want: defining fixed partitions through device boundaries. It automatically removes
> the need for further dynamic partition extensions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl