[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zvu0sRreId59-lpH@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2024 01:37:05 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Christian Marangi <ansuelsmth@...il.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
INAGAKI Hiroshi <musashino.open@...il.com>,
Daniel Golle <daniel@...rotopia.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
Li Lingfeng <lilingfeng3@...wei.com>,
Christian Heusel <christian@...sel.eu>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
Lorenzo Bianconi <lorenzo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/4] block: add support for partition table defined
in OF
On Tue, Sep 24, 2024 at 12:17:36PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 11:34:53PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 12:59:32PM +0200, Christian Marangi wrote:
> > > +#define BOOT0_STR "boot0"
> > > +#define BOOT1_STR "boot1"
> > > +
> >
> > This boot0/1 stuff looks like black magic, so it should probably be
> > documented at very least.
> >
>
> It is but from what I have read in the spec for flash in general (this
> is not limited to eMMC but also apply to UFS) these are hardware
> partition. If the version is high enough these are always present and
> have boot0 and boot1 name hardcoded by the driver.
How does this belong into generic block layer code?
> > > + partitions_np = get_partitions_node(disk_np,
> > > + state->disk->disk_name);
> >
> > disk->disk_name is not a stable identifier and can change from boot to
> > boot due to async probing. You'll need to check a uuid or label instead.
>
> This is really for the 2 special partition up to check the suffix, we
> don't really care about the name. I guess it's acceptable to use
> unstable identifier?
No. ->disk_name is in no way reliable, we can't hardcode that into
a partition parser.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists