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

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20231004113458.531124-1-mwalle@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed,  4 Oct 2023 13:34:58 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
To:     miquel.raynal@...tlin.com
Cc:     conor+dt@...nel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, ptyadav@...zon.de, rafal@...ecki.pl,
        richard@....at, robh+dt@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
        sjg@...omium.org, trini@...sulko.com, u-boot@...ts.denx.de,
        vigneshr@...com, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible

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?

Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.

-michael