[PATCH 1/6] ARM: dts: am335x-phycore-som: Update NAND partition table

[Tony Lindgren]

* Brian Norris <briannorris at chromium.org> [170106 10:21]:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 08:14:22AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> [170106 08:06]:
> > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Tony Lindgren <tony at atomide.com> wrote:
> > > > * Teresa Remmet <t.remmet at phytec.de> [170106 01:28]:
> > > >> Am Donnerstag, den 05.01.2017, 09:56 -0800 schrieb Brian Norris:
> > > >> > On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 09:18:45AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > >> > > I'm suggesting we leave the kernel nodes empty and let u-boot
> > > >> > > populate them, so maybe you guys can discuss this on the related
> > > >> > > lists.
> > > >> > That's an option. I've worked with platforms that did something like
> > > >> > this, and that's really one of the only ways you can handle putting
> > > >> > partition information in the device tree. You're really hamstringing
> > > >> > yourself when you put all the partition information in the device
> > > >> > tree.
> > > >> > And it's just dumb once that gets codified in the kernel source tree.
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> In our case the bootloader does pass the partition table to the kernel.
> > > >> So it gets overwritten anyway. This was just more for backup,
> > > >> if someone uses a different bootloader. But I'm fine with removing the
> > > >> nand partition table completely from the kernel device tree.
> > > >> Same with the SPI nor partition table.
> 
> Ah, well if these are essentially just a backup, then why do they need
> changed at all? To be more precise about my "dumb" statement: it seems
> unwise to assume that all systems using a particular board will have the
> same partition layout. So *relying* on the in-kernel DTS(I) files to
> have a universal partition layout would likely cause problems.
> 
> I don't have much problem with keeping a sample layout there as a
> backup, if you find it useful. But it seems like it will be hard to
> argue that you can ever change it in the future.
> 
> Anyway, the ofpart mechanism is there, and it's fine to use it, but it's
> up to you to understand the implications and manage the backwards
> compatibility problems :)
> 
> > > >> I will send patches for this.
> > > >
> > > > OK thanks! Also thank you Brian for your comments.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Tony - I tested leaving the partition info as-is with the updates from
> > > the bootloader and it works.  Would you prefer that I match Brian and
> > > remove the partition table completely, or should I just leave my board
> > > alone?
> > > 
> > > I am good either way.
> > 
> > OK. How about let's remove the partitions from kernel for v4.11 as
> > clean-up then for cases where the bootloader might change them?
> 
> I don't have much stake in this but...if there were any systems using
> the backup layout (i.e., the in-kernel partition layout), wouldn't that
> break them? Is there a problem with just leaving them alone?

Yeah I guess it depends on the device and it's bootloader versions.

Regards,

Tony