From: Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@dolcini.it>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@ti.com>,
linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@toradex.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mtd: parsers: ofpart: Fix parsing when size-cells is 0
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 16:23:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <223b7a4e-3aff-8070-7387-c77d2ded1dd6@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221202160030.1b8d0b8a@xps-13>
On 12/2/22 16:00, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hi Marek,
Hi,
> marex@denx.de wrote on Fri, 2 Dec 2022 15:31:40 +0100:
>
>> On 12/2/22 15:05, Miquel Raynal wrote:
>>> Hi Francesco,
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> I still strongly disagree with the initial proposal but what I think we
>>> can do is:
>>>
>>> 1. To prevent future breakages:
>>> Fix fdt_fixup_mtdparts() in u-boot. This way newer U-Boot + any
>>> kernel should work.
>>>
>>> 2. To help tracking down situations like that:
>>> Keep the warning in ofpart.c but continue to fail.
>>>
>>> 3. To fix the current situation:
>>> Immediately revert commit (and prevent it from being backported):
>>> 753395ea1e45 ("ARM: dts: imx7: Fix NAND controller size-cells")
>>> This way your own boot flow is fixed in the short term.
>>
>> Here I disagree, the fix is correct and I think we shouldn't
>> proliferate incorrect DTs which don't match the binding document.
>
> I agree we should not proliferate incorrect DTs, so let's use a modern
> description then
Yes please !
> , with a controller and a child node which defines the
> chip.
But what if there is no chip connected to the controller node ?
If I understand the proposal here right (please correct me if I'm
wrong), then:
1) This is the original, old, wrong binding:
&gpmi {
#size-cells = <1>;
...
partition@N { ... };
};
2) This is the newer, but still wrong binding:
&gpmi {
#size-cells = <0>;
...
partitions {
partition@N { ... };
};
};
3) This is the newest binding, what we want:
&gpmi {
#size-cells = <0>;
...
nand-chip {
partitions {
partition@N { ... };
};
};
};
But if there is no physical nand chip connected to the controller, would
we end up with empty nand-chip node in DT, like this?
&gpmi {
#size-cells = <X>;
...
nand-chip { /* empty */ };
};
What would be the gpmi controller size cells (X) in that case, still 0,
right ? So how does that help solve this problem, wouldn't U-Boot still
populate the partitions directly under the gpmi node or into partitions
sub-node ?
>> Rather, if a bootloader generates incorrect (new) DT entries, I
>> believe the driver should implement a fixup and warn user about this.
>> PC does that as well with broken ACPI tables as far as I can tell.
>>
>> I'm not convinced making a DT non-compliant with bindings again,
>
> I am sorry to say so, but while warnings reported by the tools
> should be fixed, it's not because the tool does not scream at you that
> the description is valid. We are actively working on enhancing the
> schema so that "all" improper descriptions get warnings (see the series
> pointed earlier), but in no way this change makes the node compliant
> with modern bindings.
>
> I'm not saying the fix is wrong, but let's be pragmatic, it currently
> leads to boot failures.
I fully agree that we do have a problem, and that it trickled into
stable makes it even worse. Maybe I don't fully understand the thing
with nand-chip proposal, see my question above, esp. the last part.
>> only to work around a problem induced by bootloader, is the right approach
>> here.
>
> When a patch breaks a board and there is no straight fix, you revert
> it, then you think harder. That's what I am saying. This is a temporary
> solution.
Isn't this patch the straight fix, at least until the bootloader can be
updated to generate the nand-chip node correctly ?
>> This would be setting a dangerous example, where anyone could request a DT fix to be reverted because their random bootloader does the wrong thing and with valid DT clean up, something broke.
>
> Please, you know this is not valid DT clean up. We've been decoupling
> controller and chip description since 2016. What I am proposing is a
> valid DT cleanup, not to the latest standard, but way closer than the
> current solution.
I think I really need one more explanation of the nand-chip part above.
[...]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-12-02 15:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-12-02 7:19 [PATCH v1] mtd: parsers: ofpart: Fix parsing when size-cells is 0 Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-02 9:14 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 10:12 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-02 10:24 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-02 10:53 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 11:23 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-02 14:05 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 14:31 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-02 15:00 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 15:23 ` Marek Vasut [this message]
2022-12-02 15:49 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 16:01 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 16:17 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-02 16:42 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 16:52 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-02 16:57 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 17:08 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-05 11:26 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-05 13:49 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-05 16:25 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-15 7:16 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-15 7:45 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-15 8:04 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-16 0:36 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-16 7:52 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-16 7:45 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-16 10:46 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-16 11:01 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-16 12:37 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-16 13:37 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-16 14:32 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-16 15:35 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-16 16:30 ` Francesco Dolcini
2023-01-02 9:40 ` Miquel Raynal
2023-01-05 11:33 ` Miquel Raynal
2023-01-05 12:47 ` Francesco Dolcini
2023-01-05 14:51 ` Marek Vasut
2023-01-05 15:03 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 17:20 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-05 11:30 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-05 15:28 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 16:45 ` Francesco Dolcini
2022-12-02 17:05 ` Miquel Raynal
2022-12-02 15:56 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-04 12:50 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-04 12:59 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-12-04 15:50 ` Marek Vasut
2022-12-02 12:43 ` Greg KH
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=223b7a4e-3aff-8070-7387-c77d2ded1dd6@denx.de \
--to=marex@denx.de \
--cc=francesco.dolcini@toradex.com \
--cc=francesco@dolcini.it \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=miquel.raynal@bootlin.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=shawnguo@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
--cc=vigneshr@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).