On 4/11/23 07:38, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 11/04/2023 01:21, jaswinder.si...@linaro.org wrote:
From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.si...@linaro.org>
Any requirement of FWU should not require changes to bindings
of other subsystems. For example, for mtd-backed storage we
can do without requiring 'fixed-partitions' children to also
carry 'uuid', a property which is non-standard and not in the
bindings.
There exists no code yet, so we can change the fwu-mtd bindings
to contain all properties within the fwu-mdata node.
Signed-off-by: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.si...@linaro.org>
---
Hi Rob, Hi Krzysztof,
I was suggested, and I agree, it would be a good idea to get your blessings
for the location and meta-data (fwu-mdata) bindings for the FWU.
The FWU images can be located in GPT partitions or MTD backed storage.
The basic bindings for fwu-mdata has already been merged in uboot (ideally they
too should have had your review). Now I am trying to fully support MTD backed
storage and hence looking for your review. The proposed bindings are totally
self-contained and don't require changes to any other subsystem.
Thanks.
I think we do not review U-Boot bindings usually, except these put in
the Linux kernel. There were few targeting U-Boot specifically (e.g.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/u-boot.yaml and
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/nvmem/u-boot,env.yaml) so if you want
our blessing, the bindings should be done in Linux kernel repo.
At least for us our goal is to have be able to share the same dt binding
document in U-Boot and Linux.
I am pretty sure that reviewing other project bindings would be too much
of work for me.
That's understandable. Pretty much it is more about to find a right location.
Simon added options node for u-boot directly to dt-schema
https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/main/dtschema/schemas/options/u-boot.yaml#L96
And if this is the same category it should maybe go directly to dt-schema
instead.
What about?
options {
fwu-mdata {
...
};
};
This thread is pretty much asking for suggesting where this can go to be able to
pass yaml checking which is required by SR.
Thanks,
Michal
