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]

Date:   Wed, 4 Oct 2023 10:05:59 -0600
From:   Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>
To:     Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>
Cc:     miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, 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, trini@...sulko.com,
        u-boot@...ts.denx.de, vigneshr@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Add binman compatible

Hi Michael,

On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 05:35, Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.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.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?

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.

>
> Maybe (a more complete) example would be helpful.

Can you please be a bit more specific? What is missing from the example?

Regards,
Simon