From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dt-bindings: mtd: describe BCM963XX ImageTag format and usage Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:30:32 -0500 Message-ID: <5b8e8a58.1c69fb81.12eaa.f292@mx.google.com> References: <20180828111944.5956-1-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> <20180828111944.5956-5-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180828111944.5956-5-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-mtd" Errors-To: linux-mtd-bounces+gldm-linux-mtd-36=gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jonas Gorski Cc: Mark Rutland , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Florian Fainelli , Boris Brezillon , Richard Weinberger , Marek Vasut , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Brian Norris , David Woodhouse List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:19:43PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote: > Describe how to use the BCM963XX ImageTag format in a mixed flash layout > environment. > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski > --- > .../mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..f4a444d69d9a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ > +Broadcom BCM963XX ImageTag Partition Container > +============================================== > + > +Some Broadcom BCM63XX SoC based devices contain additional, non discoverable > +partitions or non standard bootloader partition sizes. For these a mixed layout > +needs to be used with an explicit firmware partition. > + > +The BCM963XX ImageTag is a simple firmware header describing the offsets and > +sizes of the rootfs and kernel parts contained in the firmware. > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible : must be "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag" > + > +Examples: > + > +flash@1e000000 { > + compatible = "cfi-flash"; > + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>; > + bank-width = <2>; > + > + partitions { > + compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + cfe@0 { > + reg = <0x0 0x10000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + firmware@10000 { > + reg = <0x10000 0x7d0000>; > + compatible = "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag"; > + }; > + > + caldata@7e0000 { > + reg = <0x7e0000 0x10000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + nvram@7f0000 { > + reg = <0x7f0000 0x10000>; > + }; > + }; > +}; > + > + > +flash@1e000000 { > + compatible = "cfi-flash"; > + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>; > + bank-width = <2>; > + > + partitions { > + compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + /* > + * Some devices use a flash chip with 64k erase blocks, some > + * use one with 128k erase blocks, so the vendor decided to > + * always use 128k as the firmware offset. > + */ That's a interesting piece of info, but not really a reason to have a second example. > + > + cfe@0 { > + reg = <0x0 0x20000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + firmware@20000 { > + reg = <0x20000 0x7c0000>; > + compatible = "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag"; > + }; > + > + nvram@7e0000 { > + reg = <0x7e0000 0x20000>; > + }; > + }; > +}; > -- > 2.13.2 > ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oi0-f67.google.com ([209.85.218.67]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1fxBVU-0004sO-KN for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 13:36:38 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f67.google.com with SMTP id x197-v6so6701382oix.5 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 06:36:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5b8e8a58.1c69fb81.12eaa.f292@mx.google.com> From: Rob Herring To: Jonas Gorski Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, David Woodhouse , Brian Norris , Boris Brezillon , Marek Vasut , Richard Weinberger , Mark Rutland , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dt-bindings: mtd: describe BCM963XX ImageTag format and usage References: <20180828111944.5956-1-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> <20180828111944.5956-5-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180828111944.5956-5-jonas.gorski@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2018 19:30:32 -0500 List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 01:19:43PM +0200, Jonas Gorski wrote: > Describe how to use the BCM963XX ImageTag format in a mixed flash layout > environment. > > Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski > --- > .../mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt | 78 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 78 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..f4a444d69d9a > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@ > +Broadcom BCM963XX ImageTag Partition Container > +============================================== > + > +Some Broadcom BCM63XX SoC based devices contain additional, non discoverable > +partitions or non standard bootloader partition sizes. For these a mixed layout > +needs to be used with an explicit firmware partition. > + > +The BCM963XX ImageTag is a simple firmware header describing the offsets and > +sizes of the rootfs and kernel parts contained in the firmware. > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible : must be "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag" > + > +Examples: > + > +flash@1e000000 { > + compatible = "cfi-flash"; > + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>; > + bank-width = <2>; > + > + partitions { > + compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + cfe@0 { > + reg = <0x0 0x10000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + firmware@10000 { > + reg = <0x10000 0x7d0000>; > + compatible = "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag"; > + }; > + > + caldata@7e0000 { > + reg = <0x7e0000 0x10000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + nvram@7f0000 { > + reg = <0x7f0000 0x10000>; > + }; > + }; > +}; > + > + > +flash@1e000000 { > + compatible = "cfi-flash"; > + reg = <0x1e000000 0x2000000>; > + bank-width = <2>; > + > + partitions { > + compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + /* > + * Some devices use a flash chip with 64k erase blocks, some > + * use one with 128k erase blocks, so the vendor decided to > + * always use 128k as the firmware offset. > + */ That's a interesting piece of info, but not really a reason to have a second example. > + > + cfe@0 { > + reg = <0x0 0x20000>; > + read-only; > + }; > + > + firmware@20000 { > + reg = <0x20000 0x7c0000>; > + compatible = "brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag"; > + }; > + > + nvram@7e0000 { > + reg = <0x7e0000 0x20000>; > + }; > + }; > +}; > -- > 2.13.2 >