[PATCH] ARM: shmobile: dts: koelsch: Fix flash partition label and size

[Sergei Shtylyov]

Hello.

On 11/28/2014 3:27 AM, Simon Horman wrote:

>>> Update the size and names of flash partitions to match the
>>> expectations of the loader which are as follows:

>>> "loader"---0x0000_0000-0x0008_0000 [loader program (readonly)]
>>> "user"  ---0x0008_0000-0x0060_0000 [U-Boot + bootargs + dt + uImage (readonly)]
>>> "flash" ---0x0060_0000-0x0400_0000 [filesystem and free (read/write)]

>>> ["user"'s assumed breakdown]
>>> U-boot+ bootargs(0x0008_0000-0x0010_0000) 512KB
>>> Device tree     (0x0010_0000-0x0014_0000) 256KB
>>> uImage          (0x0014_0000-0x0060_0000) 4.75MB

>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas at verge.net.au>

>>> ---

>>> This replaces a patch that I previously posted, "shmobile: koelsch: Fix
>>> flash partition label and size in device tree", which has the same aim but
>>> does so for an older version of the loader which to my knowledge is not
>>> found in the wild.

>>> I plan to post a similar patch for Lager if this one goes well.

>>> I have been informed that the flash layout should also be the same
>>> for Alt (which currently does not have flash in its dts file in mainline).

>>> Based on the renesas-devel-20141125-v3.18-rc6 tag of my renesas tree.
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791-koelsch.dts | 12 ++++++------
>>>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791-koelsch.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791-koelsch.dts
>>> index 990af16..9a4e714 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791-koelsch.dts
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7791-koelsch.dts
>>> @@ -451,14 +451,14 @@
>>>   			reg = <0x00000000 0x00080000>;
>>>   			read-only;
>>>   		};
>>> -		partition at 80000 {
>>> -			label = "bootenv";
>>> -			reg = <0x00080000 0x00080000>;
>>> +		partition at 40000 {
>>> +			label = "user";
>>> +			reg = <0x00080000 0x00580000>;

>>     The "reg" prop doesn't match the <unit-address> pat of the name.

> Are you suggesting this?

> 			reg = <0x00080000 0x00600000>;

    No, I'm suggesting to change the <unit-address> part of the node name to 
match the offset in the "reg" property (given it's correct).

[...]

WBR, Sergei