Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
From:   Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>
To:     miquel.raynal@bootlin.com
Cc:     conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, ptyadav@amazon.de, rafal@milecki.pl,
        richard@nod.at, robh+dt@kernel.org, robh@kernel.org,
        sjg@chromium.org, trini@konsulko.com, u-boot@lists.denx.de,
        vigneshr@ti.com, Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible
Date:   Wed,  4 Oct 2023 13:34:58 +0200
Message-Id: <20231004113458.531124-1-mwalle@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231004093620.2b1d6917@xps-13>
References: <20231004093620.2b1d6917@xps-13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

>> Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
>> in various ways.
> 
> I've been thinking at the proper way to describe the binman partitions.
> I am wondering if we should really extend the fixed-partitions
> schema. This description is really basic and kind of supposed to remain
> like that. Instead, I wonder if we should not just keep the binman
> compatible alone, like many others already. This way it would be very clear
> what is expected and allowed in both cases. I am thinking about
> something like that:
> 
> 	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml 
> 
> this file is also referenced there (but this patch does the same, which
> is what I'd expect):
> 
> 	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml
> 
> I'll let the binding maintainers judge whether they think it's
> relevant, it's not a strong opposition.

What is the overall goal here? To replace the current binman node which is
usually contained in the -u-boot.dtsi files? If one is using binman to
create an image, is it expected that one needs to adapt the DT in linux?
Or will it still be a seperate -u-boot.dtsi? Because in the latter case
I see that there will be conflicts because you have to overwrite the
flash node. Or will it be a seperate node with all the information
duplicated?

Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.

-michael