Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:4 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:4;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231004093620.2b1d6917@xps-13> <20231004113458.531124-1-mwalle@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20231004113458.531124-1-mwalle@kernel.org>
From:   Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:05:59 -0600
Message-ID: <CAPnjgZ2hWE6Sc=rg55W=-r-TnoWP7Y5gSpn41kwoyja-AMVw+w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible
To:     Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>
Cc:     miquel.raynal@bootlin.com, 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, trini@konsulko.com,
        u-boot@lists.denx.de, vigneshr@ti.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Michael,

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 05:35, Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> 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?

The goal is simply to have a full binding for firmware layout, such
that firmware images can be created, examined and updated. The
-u-boot.dtsi files are a stopgap while we sort out a real binding.
They should eventually go away.

>
> Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.

Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the example?

Regards,
Simon