Hi Simon,
sjg@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300:
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?
Sorry for the confusion, there is a 'partitions' node indeed. This node shall declare it's "programming model" (let's say), ie. how it should be parsed. What defines this programming model today is the 'fixed-partitions' compatible. I think we (Rob and myself, but again, Rob, please confirm) agree on the fact that we don't want to duplicate the fixed-partitions compatible/logic and thus the binman compatible was rejected.
Hence, in order to move forward, I would definitely appreciate an update of the fixed-partitions binding in order to support what binman can generate.
We are here talking about the output of binman, not its input. TBH I haven't understood the point in having binman's input parsed by the generic yaml binding. I would advise to focus on binman's output first because it feels more relevant, at a first glance.
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.
I hope the above details will help.
Thanks, Miquèl