Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible

[Michael Walle]

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.

You haven't answered whether this node should be a seperate binman
node - or if you'll reuse the existing flash (partitions) node(s) and
add any missing property there. If it's the latter, I don't think
compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions"; is correct.

> > Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.
>
> Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the 
> example?

Like a complete (stripped) DTS. Right now I just see how the individual
node looks like. But with a complete example DTS, my question from above
would have been answered.

What if a board uses eMMC to store the firmware binaries? Will that then
be a subnode to the eMMC device?

-michael