[PATCH 08/18] fsmc/nand: Add support for default partitions for several NAND devices
Armando Visconti
armando.visconti at st.com
Tue Mar 13 05:53:53 EDT 2012
On 03/09/2012 04:11 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 15:47 +0100, Armando Visconti wrote:
>> On 03/09/2012 02:07 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 17:00 +0530, Vipin Kumar wrote:
>>>> +static struct mtd_partition partition_info_64KB_blk[] = {
>>>> + {
>>>> + .name = "X-loader",
>>>> + .offset = 0,
>>>> + .size = 4*0x10000,
>>>> + },
>>>> + {
>>>> + .name = "U-Boot",
>>>> + .offset = 4*0x10000,
>>>> + .size = 8*0x40000,
>>>> + },
>>>> + {
>>>> + .name = "Kernel",
>>>> + .offset = (4+8)*0x10000,
>>>> + .size = 64*0x40000,
>>>> + },
>>>> + {
>>>> + .name = "Root File System",
>>>> + .offset = (4+8+64)*0x10000,
>>>> + .size = MTDPART_SIZ_FULL,
>>>> + },
>>>> +};
>>>
>>> Shouldn't this kind of data come from DT/platform data or cmdline
>>> instead? Does it make sense to have it hard-coded in the driver?
>>>
>>
>> These are just the default partitions.
>
> I thing the default should be "no partitions" instead of a hard-coded
> list of partitions tailored to a specific system.
>
>> We are passing them also from platform, and it is possible also
>> from cmdline.
>
> Fine, then deleting the defaults should not hurt :-)
>
Yes, Artem, I think you are right.
Actually I checked better and I can say that:
1. We do have the provision to pass the partitions thru pdata and
cmdline
2. Nevertheless, we are not passing partitions thru pdata in none
of our platforms.
I think we need to change this and pass partitions thru pdata.
Vipin, what's your opinion?
Thx,
Arm
--
-- "Every step appears to be the unavoidable consequence of the
-- preceding one." (A. Einstein)
--
Armando Visconti Mobile: (+39) 346 8879146
Senior SW Engineer Fax: (+39) 02 93519290
CPG Work: (+39) 02 93519683
Computer System Division e-mail: armando.visconti at st.com
ST Microelectronics TINA: 051 4683
More information about the linux-mtd
mailing list