Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Miquel, On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 20:35, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > s...@chromium.org wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:25:42 +1300: > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > > > s...@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300: > > > > > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal > > > > 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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Simon, s...@chromium.org wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:25:42 +1300: > Hi Miquel, > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > > > Hi Simon, > > > > s...@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300: > > > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal > > > 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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Miquel, On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > s...@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300: > > > Hi Miquel, > > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal > > 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.
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Simon, s...@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300: > Hi Miquel, > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal 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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Miquel, On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal 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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
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. Thanks, Miquèl
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Miquel, On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 00:50, Miquel Raynal wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > s...@chromium.org wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:07:38 -0700: > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in > > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > > > > > > +$id: > > > > > > > > > > > http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > > +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. > > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > >
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Simon, s...@chromium.org wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:07:38 -0700: > Hi Rob, > > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > > > > > +$id: > > > > > > > > > > http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > +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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Rob, On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > > > > +$id: > > > > > > > > > http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > > +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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > > +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. > > > > >
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Rob, On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > > + > > > > > > > +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
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Rob, On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend > > > > > > fixed-partitions > > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > > +++ > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > > + > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > > +--- > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > > + > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > > + > > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > > + > > > > > > +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. Regards, Simon
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 > > > > > +++ > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > > + > > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > > +--- > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > > + > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > > + > > > > > +maintainers: > > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > > + > > > > > +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. Rob
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Rob, On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Hi Rob, > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > > > > in various ways. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > > --- > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 +++ > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git > > > > a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > > + > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Simon Glass > > > > + > > > > +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? But if not, then whatever works is fine for now. I just want to make some progress on this very, very old series. > > In the partition nodes, 'align' for example is allowed for a binman > partition but not a fixed-partition. > > Note that the schema may not actually warn on extra properties ATM > because there are some issues with the schema structure. Since there > can be nested partittions, that complicates matters. It's been on my > todo list to fix. OK. Regards, Simon
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Rob, > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > > > in various ways. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > > --- > > > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > > > Changes in v5: > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > > > Changes in v4: > > > - Change subject line > > > > > > Changes in v3: > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 +++ > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index ..329217550a98 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > > + > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > +--- > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > + > > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > > + > > > +maintainers: > > > + - Simon Glass > > > + > > > +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'. In the partition nodes, 'align' for example is allowed for a binman partition but not a fixed-partition. Note that the schema may not actually warn on extra properties ATM because there are some issues with the schema structure. Since there can be nested partittions, that complicates matters. It's been on my todo list to fix. Rob
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi Rob, On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > > in various ways. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > > --- > > > > (no changes since v5) > > > > Changes in v5: > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > > - Drop 'select: false' > > > > Changes in v4: > > - Change subject line > > > > Changes in v3: > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > > > Changes in v2: > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > > - Mention Binman input and output properties > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 +++ > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index ..329217550a98 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > > + > > +%YAML 1.2 > > +--- > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > + > > +title: Binman firmware layout > > + > > +maintainers: > > + - Simon Glass > > + > > +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. Regards, SImon
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > in various ways. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > > (no changes since v5) > > Changes in v5: > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > - Drop 'select: false' > > Changes in v4: > - Change subject line > > Changes in v3: > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > Changes in v2: > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > - Mention Binman input and output properties > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 68 +++ > .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml | 1 + > MAINTAINERS | 5 ++ > 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index ..329217550a98 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC > + > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml# > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > + > +title: Binman firmware layout > + > +maintainers: > + - Simon Glass > + > +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. Rob
Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible
Hi, On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 10:29, Simon Glass wrote: > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions > in various ways. > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass > --- > > (no changes since v5) Is there any movement on this series, please? > > Changes in v5: > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml > - Drop 'select: false' > > Changes in v4: > - Change subject line > > Changes in v3: > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example > - Mention use of compatible instead of label > > Changes in v2: > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml > - Mention Binman input and output properties > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name > Regards, Simon
