[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mtd: rawnand: ams-delta: Drop board specific partition info
Hi Aaro,

Thanks for your review.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 2:16:30 AM CET Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 11:37:18PM +0100, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote:
> > After recent modifications, only a hardcoded partition info makes
> > the driver device specific. Other than that, the driver uses GPIO
> > exclusively and can be used on any hardware.
> >
> > Drop the partition info and use MTD partition parser with default
> > list of partition types instead.
> >
> > Amstrad Delta users should append the followig partition info to their
> ^^^^^^^^
> Should be "following".
> > kernel command line, possibly by embedding it in CONFIG_CMDLINE:
> > mtdparts=ams-delta-nand:3584k(Kernel),256k(u-boot),256k(u-boot_params),\
> > 256k(Amstrad_LDR),27m(File_system),768k(PBL_reserved). For their
> > convenience, select CONFIG_MTD_CMDLINE_PARTS symbol from that board
> > Kconfig automatically if this NAND driver is also selected.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Janusz Krzysztofik <>
> > Cc: Tony Lindgren <>
> Could we move the fixed partition setup to the board file
> instead? Otherwise this kind of change is not really nice for the users,
> as it will likely break existing setups. The default partition layout
> should remain the same.

I'm wondering if it would be acceptable to pass partition info from a .dts
file. I think that would be a better, more modern approach than adding a new
header under include/linux/platform_data.

The problem with a device tree based implementation is, I know of no u-boot
version supporting both Amstrad Delta and FDT. However, I've already tested
two solutions that work for me.

One uses CONFIG_ARM_APPENDED_DTB and requires a user to manually append the
blob to zImage and (re)generate uImage. I'm not sure how much more user-
friendly it looks for you, compared to the command line version I proposed

If the above is not acceptable. I can propose still another approach. The blob
is automagically built and embedded into the kernel with some assembler glue,
then unflattened from the board init_machine(), somehow similar to the way
drivers/of/unittest.c does it.

Please advise which approach sounds best to you (platform_data,
CONFIG_ARM_APPENDED_DTB or unittest like).


> A.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-24 17:48    [W:0.150 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site