From: Wolfgang Denk <hidden> Date: 2007-09-15 15:09:14
In message [off-list ref] Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 05:23 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
...
quoted
There are not only Bamboo board running PIBS, but running U-Boot too. How
should we handle this different FLASH partitioning? Same goes for Ebony too
btw.
That's a good question. I'm working on making the NOR flash show up for
Bamboo right now, and I had intended to just leave the partition
subnodes missing.
Maybe we can have U-Boot add the partition information if it's
missing in the device tree, and extend the mtdparts command in U-Boot
to add / adjust settings so they match what is defined in U-Boot.
Stefan, what do you think?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de
Without facts, the decision cannot be made logically. You must rely
on your human intuition.
-- Spock, "Assignment: Earth", stardate unknown
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 17:09 +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [off-list ref] Josh Boyer wrote:
quoted
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 05:23 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
...
quoted
quoted
There are not only Bamboo board running PIBS, but running U-Boot too. How
should we handle this different FLASH partitioning? Same goes for Ebony too
btw.
That's a good question. I'm working on making the NOR flash show up for
Bamboo right now, and I had intended to just leave the partition
subnodes missing.
Maybe we can have U-Boot add the partition information if it's
missing in the device tree, and extend the mtdparts command in U-Boot
to add / adjust settings so they match what is defined in U-Boot.
That would be great for newer U-Boots. For existing older ones, it
doesn't really solve the problem. But then again, there's no way to
possibly define all the partitioning schemes people may have adopted to
their needs on their boards. And I believe that is why David has
RedBoot and command line partitioning override what is in the DTS today.
josh
Maybe we can have U-Boot add the partition information if it's
missing in the device tree, and extend the mtdparts command in U-Boot
to add / adjust settings so they match what is defined in U-Boot.
That would be great for newer U-Boots. For existing older ones, it
doesn't really solve the problem. But then again, there's no way to
possibly define all the partitioning schemes people may have adopted to
their needs on their boards. And I believe that is why David has
RedBoot and command line partitioning override what is in the DTS
today.
Yeah, partitioning information really doesn't belong in the device
tree -- with the possible exception of the partitions that the
firmware (uboot in this case) needs to know about anyway.
You *can* put all partitioning info in the device tree, but that
doesn't mean you *should* :-)
Segher
From: David Gibson <hidden> Date: 2007-09-17 02:46:07
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 05:09:01PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message [off-list ref] Josh Boyer wrote:
quoted
On Sat, 2007-09-15 at 05:23 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
...
quoted
quoted
There are not only Bamboo board running PIBS, but running U-Boot too. How
should we handle this different FLASH partitioning? Same goes for Ebony too
btw.
That's a good question. I'm working on making the NOR flash show up for
Bamboo right now, and I had intended to just leave the partition
subnodes missing.
Maybe we can have U-Boot add the partition information if it's
missing in the device tree, and extend the mtdparts command in U-Boot
to add / adjust settings so they match what is defined in U-Boot.
Stefan, what do you think?
If U-Boot is supplying a device tree, it should certainly make the
partition information match its own idea of the partitions.
For older non-device-tree away u-boot, I guess we'll have to make the
cuboot and treeboot wrappers mangle the device tree differently to
correct the partition information.
I suspect the easiest way to do this will be for the dts to contain
both treeboot and u-boot partition info, and have the wrapper delete
or nop the nodes for the other firmware.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
From: David Gibson <hidden> Date: 2007-09-17 02:46:07
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 09:20:10PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
quoted
quoted
Maybe we can have U-Boot add the partition information if it's
missing in the device tree, and extend the mtdparts command in U-Boot
to add / adjust settings so they match what is defined in U-Boot.
That would be great for newer U-Boots. For existing older ones, it
doesn't really solve the problem. But then again, there's no way to
possibly define all the partitioning schemes people may have adopted to
their needs on their boards. And I believe that is why David has
RedBoot and command line partitioning override what is in the DTS
today.
Yeah, partitioning information really doesn't belong in the device
tree -- with the possible exception of the partitions that the
firmware (uboot in this case) needs to know about anyway.
Indeed - but we had just the same problem, only worse, with the old
approach of hardcoded, configured-in flash maps.
You *can* put all partitioning info in the device tree, but that
doesn't mean you *should* :-)
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson