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: <CAPnjgZ3bsNvCO_DkUG+99Ep_RPtQR42+AvxbLoZGBq+G8cWtPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:05:43 -0600
From:   Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To:     Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
Cc:     devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Tom Rini <trini@...sulko.com>,
        U-Boot Mailing List <u-boot@...ts.denx.de>,
        linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Pratyush Yadav <ptyadav@...zon.de>,
        Rafał Miłecki <rafal@...ecki.pl>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible

Hi Miquel,

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 01:36, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> sjg@...omium.org wrote on Mon,  2 Oct 2023 11:49:40 -0600:
>
> > 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.

OK, yes I can do that. I suppose they would still remain backwards
compatible, due to the use of '$ref: partition.yaml#'

>
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
> > ---
>
> [...]
>
> > +properties:
> > +  compatible:
> > +    const: binman
>
> Right now this does not fit (I believe) the example. But if we no
> longer extend fixed-partitions but just create binman.yaml, this will
> probably be enough.

OK

>
> > +
> > +additionalProperties: false
> > +
> > +examples:
> > +  - |
> > +    partitions {
> > +        compatible = "binman", "fixed-partitions";
> > +        #address-cells = <1>;
> > +        #size-cells = <1>;
> > +
> > +        partition@...000 {
> > +            label = "u-boot";
> > +            reg = <0x100000 0xf00000>;
> > +        };
> > +    };

Regards,
Simon