On Thu, 8 Nov 2018, at 10:48, Tao Ren wrote:

On 11/7/18 4:02 PM, Andrew Jeffery wrote:

quoted

quoted

+partitions {
+	compatible = "fixed-partitions";
+	#address-cells = <1>;
+	#size-cells = <1>;
+
+	u-boot at 0 {
+		reg = <0x0 0x60000>;
+		label = "u-boot";
+	};
+
+	u-boot-env at 60000 {
+		reg = <0x60000 0x20000>;
+		label = "env";
+	};
+
+	fit at 80000 {
+		reg = <0x80000 0x1b80000>;
+		label = "fit";
+	};
+
+	data0 at 1c00000 {
+		reg = <0x1c00000 0x400000>;
+		label = "data0";
+	};
+
+	flash0 at 0 {
+		reg = <0x0 0x2000000>;
+		label = "flash0";
+	};

Is this necessary? Isn't the same thing achieved with the /dev/mtd0 device?

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for the review! The new layout file is needed mainly because 
of "data0" partition: several facebook platforms use the partition as 
"persistent" storage.

As for "flash0", technically it's not needed (as you pointed out, /dev/
mtd0 covers the entire flash if master_partition is enabled). It's still 
here to avoid breaking some legacy applications.

This is what I expected. I think it might be worth adding a comment, given
you are respinning the series to address my comments on the board
devicetree patch.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification.

Andrew