Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-96453-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231116172859.393744-1-sjg@chromium.org> <20231208150042.GA1278773-robh@kernel.org>
 <CAPnjgZ2i4gvgiUeHPOfHuOdBooV4e=QQEq6iMo0JbDwOS6dCwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_Jsq+xMZ8yz4H9D59uCSyX4h5W+4ruGF++=wVA=msXz+Y01A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPnjgZ1uW8T6woXSqFUNm301=W3zBYOrADREkrz=DuwSW87qZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20231214172702.GA617226-robh@kernel.org> <CAPnjgZ2oJSGPO91Y_aLbe+v250WFrND4n3T0mOvhERYidVu=eQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFLszTizRRVbRO6_ygE2X-Lp5dENWSc4uMGL5GPJAFGAbRdCyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_Jsq+j7_KZtQ2ENq9+vsw0LOZF=spu293_G=AxOmBM+m_f-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFLszTimaFw9sf=JKvQXG4fS6V_2T=2n+pfvYLCiuG1o+7cHPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240205085056.44278f2c@xps-13> <CAFLszTi+8ygXOidnhxj7sdJwc6X5i+++QvnUyfe-kde5eSts_w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240205131755.3462084f@xps-13>
In-Reply-To: <20240205131755.3462084f@xps-13>
From: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300
Message-ID: <CAFLszTh3t6wPz8PFhFzazTAGaLVpObkjY9qv7MtSkQ21zZFzKA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com>, 
	Michael Walle <mwalle@kernel.org>, U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@lists.denx.de>, 
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>, 
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>, Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@amazon.de>, 
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= <rafal@milecki.pl>, 
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi Miquel,

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > wrong path?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > to make progress.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.
> > > >
> > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > fixed-partition.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > misunderstand his answer?
> > >
> > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > understand all binman's output.
> > >
> > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.
> >
> > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> >
> > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > schema?
>
> This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> also welcome.

I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.

There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
conflict?

Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
really use a little help.

Thank you,
Simon