[PATCH] powerpc: Create "rom" (MTD) device prpmc2800
David Gibson
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au
Thu Jun 14 14:29:07 EST 2007
On Wed, Jun 13, 2007 at 11:37:42AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> How do non-device-tree MTD users handle this?
> >
> > Invidual, board-specific map files with hardcoded partition tables.
>
> That's what I was afraid of. Sigh.
>
> > See drivers/mtd/maps/ebony.c for example.
>
> [/me looks...] Oh horror.
>
> > Hence my view of the device
> > tree as a preferable option.
>
> I think some binary partition table format that can be
> used by _all_ MTD consumers should be defined. How
> that table should be communicated to the kernel in the
> device tree case we can discuss later, then. Maybe
> something as simple as storing it in flash, and have a
> "partition-table-offset" property or something like that.
>
> This is something the MTD people will have to buy into
> of course.
I tought I saw some config option implying that there already existed
an on-device partition table format for flashes. Doesn't help us for
existing boards which don't expect such a setup, of course.
Incidentally, with either the partitions-described-by-properties, or
the revised more-flexible partitions-described-by-subnodes format, I'm
not seeing it as required that the whole of the flash address space be
described. So it would certainly be possible to *only* describe the
sections of the flash used by firmware. But I'm suggesting that we
optionally allow other partitions to be described for boards / systems
which have strong conventions about how the flash is divided and where
we don't have any other way of recording the partition layout short of
hardcoding.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list