Hi Michael,
On Thu, 5 Oct 2023 at 02:54, 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.yamlthis file is also referenced there (but this patch does the same, which is what I'd expect):
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yamlI'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.
My intent is to make it compatible, so wouldn't it make sense to have binman as the first compatible, then falling back to fixed-partitions as the second?
As far as I know, the compatibles should get more specific with each string.
That's the opposite to what I understood.
But "binman" seems to be used as a kind of tag which could be added to any compatible under the flash node. What if one wants to build an image which isn't compatible = "fixed-partitions"? E.g. "linksys,ns-partitions", will it then have compatible = "binman", "linksys,ns-partitions"?
I suppose so.
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.
So to give an example myself, please correct it if it's wrong. From our board (kontron-sl28):
&fspi { status = "okay";
flash@0 { compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; m25p,fast-read; spi-max-frequency = <133000000>; reg = <0>; /* The following setting enables 1-1-2 (CMD-ADDR-DATA)mode */ spi-rx-bus-width = <2>; /* 2 SPI Rx lines */ spi-tx-bus-width = <1>; /* 1 SPI Tx line */
partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>; partition@0 { reg = <0x000000 0x010000>; label = "rcw"; read-only; }; partition@10000 { reg = <0x010000 0x1d0000>; label = "failsafe bootloader"; read-only; }; partition@200000 { reg = <0x200000 0x010000>; label = "configuration store"; }; partition@210000 { reg = <0x210000 0x1d0000>; label = "bootloader"; }; partition@3e0000 { reg = <0x3e0000 0x020000>; label = "bootloader environment"; }; }; };};
In u-boot we use binman, see arch/arm/dts/fsl-ls1028a-kontron-sl28-u-boot.dtsi in the u-boot repository.
Now to use the new method, am I expected to adapt the dts in the linux kernel? As far as I understand that is the case. So that node from above would look something like the following:
&fspi { status = "okay";
flash@0 { compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"; m25p,fast-read; spi-max-frequency = <133000000>; reg = <0>; /* The following setting enables 1-1-2 (CMD-ADDR-DATA)mode */ spi-rx-bus-width = <2>; /* 2 SPI Rx lines */ spi-tx-bus-width = <1>; /* 1 SPI Tx line */
partitions { compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions"; #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <1>;[..] partition@210000 { reg = <0x210000 0x1d0000>; label = "u-boot"; /* or "u-boot+atf" ? */ };
partition@3e0000 { reg = <0x3e0000 0x020000>; label = "bootloader environment"; }; }; };};
I'm still not sure why that compatible is needed. Also I'd need to change the label which might break user space apps looking for that specific name.
Also, our board might have u-boot/spl or u-boot/spl/bl31/bl32, right now that's something which depends on an u-boot configuration variable, which then enables or disables binman nodes in the -u-boot.dtsi. So in linux we only have that "bootloader" partition, but there might be either u-boot+spl or u-boot+spl+bl31+bl32.
Honestly, I'm really not sure this should go into a device tree.
I think we might be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. I thought that the decision was that the label should indicate the contents. If you have multiple things in a partition then it would become a 'section' in Binman's terminology. Either the label programmatically describes what is inside or it doesn't. We can't have it both ways. What do you suggest?
At present it seems you have the image described in two places - one is the binman node and the other is the partitions node. I would like to unify these.
What does user space do with the partition labels?
What if a board uses eMMC to store the firmware binaries? Will that then be a subnode to the eMMC device?
I thought there was a way to link the partition nodes and the device using a property, without having the partition info as a subnode of the device. But I may have imagined it as I cannot find it now. So yes, it will be a subnode of the eMMC device.
Not sure if that will fly.
I can't find it anyway. There is somelike like that in simple-framebuffer with the 'display' property.
Regards, SImon