Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Mon, 21 Mar 2022 13:41:39 +0100
From:   Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
To:     Robert Marko <robert.marko@sartura.hr>
Cc:     gregory.clement@bootlin.com, sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        pali@kernel.org, marek.behun@nic.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: uDPU: update partition table
Message-ID: <Yjhyg5cNe5KZ6SOp@lunn.ch>
References: <20220321121728.414839-1-robert.marko@sartura.hr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220321121728.414839-1-robert.marko@sartura.hr>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 01:17:27PM +0100, Robert Marko wrote:
> Partition currently called "uboot" does not only contain U-boot, but
> rather it contains TF-A, U-boot and U-boot environment.
> 
> So, to avoid accidentally deleting the U-boot environment which is
> located at 0x180000 split the partition.
> 
> "uboot" is not the correct name as you can't boot these boards with U-boot
> only, TF-A must be present as well, so rename the "uboot" partition to
> "firmware".

Are there any ABI issues here? If these names are being used
somewhere, you are potentially breaking the boot. At minimum, i would
like to see something in the commit message which indicates you have
considered this and why you don't expect it to be a problem.

	   Andrew