linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: block: add basic bindings for block devices

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, 6 Mar 2024 08:22:59 +0100
From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
To: Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
	Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Thomas Weißschuh <linux@...ssschuh.net>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
	Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>,
	Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>, Min Li <min15.li@...sung.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
	Christian Loehle <CLoehle@...erstone.com>,
	Avri Altman <avri.altman@....com>, Bean Huo <beanhuo@...ron.com>,
	Yeqi Fu <asuk4.q@...il.com>,
	Victor Shih <victor.shih@...esyslogic.com.tw>,
	Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
	"Ricardo B. Marliere" <ricardo@...liere.net>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Diping Zhang <diping.zhang@...inet.com>,
	Jianhui Zhao <zhaojh329@...il.com>,
	Jieying Zeng <jieying.zeng@...inet.com>,
	Chad Monroe <chad.monroe@...ran.com>,
	Adam Fox <adam.fox@...ran.com>, John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/8] dt-bindings: block: add basic bindings for
 block devices

Hi Daniel,

On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 08:23:20PM +0000, Daniel Golle wrote:
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..df561dd33cbc9
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/block/partition.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/block/partition.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Partition on a block device
> +
> +description: |
> +  This binding describes a partition on a block storage device.
> +  Partitions may be matched by a combination of partition number, name,
> +  and UUID.
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>
> +
> +properties:
> +  $nodename:
> +    pattern: '^block-partition-.+$'
> +
> +  partnum:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> +    description:
> +      Matches partition by number if present.
> +
> +  partname:
> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/string
> +    description:
> +      Matches partition by PARTNAME if present.

In the mtd world we originally had the partition nodes directly under
the hardware device node as well. That was changed to put a
partitions subnode between the hardware device node and the partitions.

>From fe2585e9c29a ("doc: dt: mtd: support partitions in a special
'partitions' subnode"):

    To avoid conflict with other drivers using subnodes of the mtd device
    create only one ofpart-specific node rather than any number of
    arbitrary partition subnodes.

Does it make sense to do the same for block devices?

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Steuerwalder Str. 21                       | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
31137 Hildesheim, Germany                  | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |