linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: Add bindings for describing concatinated MTD 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]

Message-ID:
 <IA0PR12MB76997482D362A83205E3D9F3DC212@IA0PR12MB7699.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 10:08:29 +0000
From: "Mahapatra, Amit Kumar" <amit.kumar-mahapatra@....com>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
CC: "tudor.ambarus@...aro.org" <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, "michael@...le.cc"
	<michael@...le.cc>, "broonie@...nel.org" <broonie@...nel.org>,
	"pratyush@...nel.org" <pratyush@...nel.org>, "richard@....at"
	<richard@....at>, "vigneshr@...com" <vigneshr@...com>, "robh@...nel.org"
	<robh@...nel.org>, "conor+dt@...nel.org" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
	"krzk+dt@...nel.org" <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, "Abbarapu, Venkatesh"
	<venkatesh.abbarapu@....com>, "linux-spi@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>, "nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com"
	<nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>, "alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com"
	<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, "claudiu.beznea@...on.dev"
	<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, "Simek, Michal" <michal.simek@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "alsa-devel@...a-project.org"
	<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>, "patches@...nsource.cirrus.com"
	<patches@...nsource.cirrus.com>, "git (AMD-Xilinx)" <git@....com>,
	"amitrkcian2002@...il.com" <amitrkcian2002@...il.com>, "beanhuo@...ron.com"
	<beanhuo@...ron.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: mtd: Add bindings for describing
 concatinated MTD devices

> > Sorry about that. I am redefining both the flash nodes here with
> > proper indentation.
> >
> > flash@0 {
> > 	compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> > 	...
> > 	partitions {
> > 		compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> > 		concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >
> > 		flash0_partition: partition@0 {
> > 			label = "part0_0";
> > 			reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > };
> >
> > flash@1 {
> > 	compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> > 	...
> > 	partitions {
> > 		compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> > 		concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >
> > 		flash1_partition: partition@0 {
> > 			label = "part0_1";
> > 			reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> > 		};
> > 	};
> > };
> >
> >>
> >> >                 compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >> >                         concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >> >                         flash0_partition: partition@0 {
> >> >                                 label = "part0_0";
> >> >                                 reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> >> >                         }
> >> >                 }
> >> > }
> >> > flash@1 {
> >> >         compatible = "jedec,spi-nor"
> >> >         ...
> >> >                 partitions {
> >> >                 compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >> >                         concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
> >> >                         flash1_partition: partition@0 {
> >> >                                 label = "part0_1";
> >> >                                 reg = <0x0 0x800000>;
> >> >                         }
> >> >                 }
> >> > }
> >>
> >> This approach has a limitation I didn't think about before: you
> >> cannot use anything else than fixed partitions as partition parser.
> >
> > Yes, that's correct—it won't function when partitions are defined via
> > the command line. In my opinion, we should start by adding support for
> > fixed partitions, add comments in code stating the same. If needed, we
> > can later extend the support to dynamic partitions as well.
> 
> New thought. What if it was a pure fixed-partition capability? That's actually what we

Yes, I agree—it’s better to present it as a purely fixed-partition capability.


Regards,
Amit
> want: defining fixed partitions through device boundaries. It automatically removes
> the need for further dynamic partition extensions.
> 
> Thanks,
> Miquèl