marex@xxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 5 Jan 2023 15:51:10 +0100: > On 1/5/23 13:47, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > Hello Miquel, > > Hi, > > [...] > > >> Let's move forward with this. Let's assume my fears are baseless. We > >> might consider the situation where someone tries to hide the partitions > >> by setting #size-cell to 0 even wronger and too unlikely. Hopefully we > >> will not break any other existing setups by applying an always-on fix. > > > > Nice, good! > > Indeed > > >> I would still like to see U-Boot partitions handling evolve, at least: > >> - fix #size-cells in fdt_fixup_mtd() > >> - avoid the fdt_fixup_mtd() call from Collibri boards (ie. an example > >> that can be followed by the other users) > > > > Fine, I can do it. > > > > However I am just not 100% sure about your proposal, I wonder if we > > should just deprecate this function or we should fix it. > > I would say fix it. Well, I think these are two orthogonal changes. The function should be deprecated *and* fixed for the existing users? > > The exact end result will depend on the discussion with the U-Boot > > folks, but I absolutely agree that the current situation needs to > > change. I'll keep you in CC on those patches. > > > >> On Linux side let's fix #size-cells like you proposed without filtering > >> against a list of compatibles. We however need to improve the > >> heuristics: > >> - Do it only when there are partitions declared within a NAND > >> controller node. > >> - Change the warning to avoid mentioning backward compatibility, just > >> mention this is utterly wrong and thus the value will be set to 1 > >> instead of 0. > >> - Mention in the comment above this only works on systems with <4GiB > >> chips. > >> If you think about other conditions please feel free to add them. > >> > >> Do you concur? > > Yes, I do agree. > > Same here, agreed, thanks. > > [...] Thanks, Miquèl
