From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from phobos.denx.de (phobos.denx.de [85.214.62.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FA4EC54EBE for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 13:58:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from h2850616.stratoserver.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5412D851BE; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:58:34 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=mailserver.it header.i=@mailserver.it header.b="bak0ZW+4"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by phobos.denx.de (Postfix, from userid 109) id 133FB8535B; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:58:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out-06.comm2000.it (smtp-out-06.comm2000.it [212.97.32.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by phobos.denx.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3665850A6 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:58:30 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: phobos.denx.de; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=francesco@dolcini.it Received: from francesco-nb.int.toradex.com (31-10-206-125.static.upc.ch [31.10.206.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: francesco@dolcini.it) by smtp-out-06.comm2000.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CB9B1561725; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:58:29 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mailserver.it; s=mailsrv; t=1673877510; bh=eWq1UzZjC3WvtQj78i6Zj5C4VO+3Vddgz9iy5EIrFvI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=bak0ZW+4kgRVS51tIhWDI6IkWJtK0rY0PkowV11lIbl+ViiWg8CGCZdrmybKsgCCd 0hM7slYvxuWOb2lPUcDE990Dq8fvX5ADyhRg427KedXWMSXfKRrxukwZ1OcFRYsl4X tMYkwQVxdpmFqwdYeJLVo4Vawiwwxm9osH5/8B7JxcDkIzKn0wtCNgjoEWSUvXjel0 MOBF88E+uGXbpHH3jmG1l/U7FyUeojY2/tk0g+KqSNnLFKEbsPsxlpAJirjZ0I3Q6Q Ft0Q3IqABVHV5B8NlDexSU3ghvnmTt/C9CbXSJo+gXeljxK8y9wCxpo7DQAOg2jrlV qiCYcIFmQOorQ== Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 14:58:28 +0100 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Marek Vasut Cc: Francesco Dolcini , Simon Glass , u-boot@lists.denx.de, Marcel Ziswiler , Francesco Dolcini , Miquel Raynal Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] colibri-imx7: specify MTD partitions on command line Message-ID: References: <20230113184547.487322-1-francesco@dolcini.it> <20230113184547.487322-3-francesco@dolcini.it> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: u-boot@lists.denx.de X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 Precedence: list List-Id: U-Boot discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de Sender: "U-Boot" X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.6 at phobos.denx.de X-Virus-Status: Clean On Sun, Jan 15, 2023 at 03:33:25PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 1/13/23 19:45, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > From: Francesco Dolcini > > > > Disable fdt_fixup_mtdparts(), instead pass MTD partition on the command > > line. This is the preferred method to be used when partitions are not > > statically defined into the DTS according the Linux MTD subsystem > > maintainer. > > Do we really want to do this ? > I thought passing the mtdparts via DT is the preferred way ? Yes, to me it seems like the most robust approach to minimize chances of regressions and boot issues. With the current dts schema, that expects the partitions to not be direct children of the nand controller node, but expecting having a nand-chip, and partitions as a child of the nand-chip this is the most likely approach to just works. For example if I add a partition node to my DTS, older U-Boot will just ignore it and add the partitions as children of the nand controller. In this case the current parser will just fails leading to another flavor of boot failure on our board. In reality I cannot really tell which u-boot/kernel combination is going to be used on our SOMs. Said that, what would be the disadvantages of having the partitions on the command line? Miquel? Francesco