On 7/14/20 8:37 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 11:02:02AM +0200, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
>> Linux v5.8-rc1 adds partitions to the flash@0 node, which now overlap
>> with the partitions we define and resulting in errors:
>>
>> ERROR: m25p0.barebox: New partition m25p0.barebox conflicts
>> with m25p0.at91bootstrap
>> ERROR: m25p0.barebox-environment: New partition
>> m25p0.barebox-environment conflicts with m25p0.bootloader
>>
>> We don't want to reuse those partitions as their name may and probably
>> will change (they have leading zeroes in the unit address).
>> We could use the &{/path/to/partition} syntax, but that might be broken
>> soon as well, as the nodes aren't inside a partitions node with a
>> "fixed-partitions" compatible.
>> The busses also don't align with the yaml schema and might be renamed.
>>
>> Nuke the full flash@0 node and supply ours and avoid these problems.
>> The offsets of the partitions have been adjusted to coincide with the
>> upstream offsets for second stage bootloader and environment.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <ahmad@xxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Hello Sascha,
>>
>> The brekage doesn't seem to end..
>> if possible please reorder before v5.8-rc1 dts/ sync.
>> ---
>
> I haven't reordered it, please see if you are happy with the result
> anyway. It looks like I would have to put the whole at91 stack before
> the dts updates, I rather don't do that.
Ah, I missed that they don't apply cleanly.
Well, I think it's ok. Only environment will be broken between these
two comments.
>
> Regards,
> Sascha
>
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
