linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v12 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: Describe MTD partitions concatenation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <874j0zqgps.fsf@bootlin.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:18:39 +0100
From: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Amit Kumar Mahapatra <amit.kumar-mahapatra@....com>,  richard@....at,
  vigneshr@...com,  krzk+dt@...nel.org,  conor+dt@...nel.org,
  linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,  devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
  linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,  git@....com,  amitrkcian2002@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: Describe MTD partitions
 concatenation

On 12/02/2025 at 10:06:59 -06, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 09:25:53AM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> >> The partitions that gets created are
>> >> part0_0
>> >> part1_1
>> >> part0_1-part1_0-concat
>> >
>> > 'part-concat' doesn't work if you have multiple sets of partitions you 
>> > want to concatenate.
>> >
>> > I think you need something like 'prev-partition' or 'next-partition' in 
>> > the partition nodes to create a linked list of partitions. Hopefully, 
>> > you don't need both properties, but you do have to scan everything to 
>> > figure out which ones are concatenated or not. For example, no property 
>> > can mean not concatenated or last partition if you use 'next-partition'. 
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, would the chosen node be eligible as a central place
>> where to look at?
>
> Why would you need that?

I'm talking about storing in a central place all the concatenated
partitions. Your proposal with "next-partition" works fine if we locate
it inside the 'partitions' node, but I feel like the 'part-concat'
instead was not fitting very well there. So I was wondering in this case
if moving the concatenation of the partitions would be eligible to the
chosen node, or if that's reserved to *very* few properties (and should
remain like that).

Thanks,
Miquèl