diff mbox series

[v6,1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible

Message ID 20231116172859.393744-1-sjg@chromium.org
State New
Headers show
Series [v6,1/3] dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Add binman compatible | expand

Commit Message

Simon Glass Nov. 16, 2023, 5:28 p.m. UTC 
Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
in various ways.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---

(no changes since v5)

Changes in v5:
- Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
- Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
- Drop 'select: false'

Changes in v4:
- Change subject line

Changes in v3:
- Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
- Drop fixed-partitions from the example
- Mention use of compatible instead of label

Changes in v2:
- Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
- Mention Binman input and output properties
- Use plain partition@xxx for the node name

 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
 MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml

Comments

Simon Glass Nov. 29, 2023, 11:22 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi,

On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 10:29, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> in various ways.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
> (no changes since v5)

Is there any movement on this series, please?

>
> Changes in v5:
> - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> - Drop 'select: false'
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Change subject line
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> - Mention use of compatible instead of label
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> - Mention Binman input and output properties
> - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
>

Regards,
Simon
Rob Herring Dec. 8, 2023, 3 p.m. UTC | #2 
On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> in various ways.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
> 
> (no changes since v5)
> 
> Changes in v5:
> - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> - Drop 'select: false'
> 
> Changes in v4:
> - Change subject line
> 
> Changes in v3:
> - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> 
> Changes in v2:
> - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> - Mention Binman input and output properties
> - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> 
>  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
>  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
>  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
>  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..329217550a98
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> +
> +%YAML 1.2
> +---
> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> +
> +title: Binman firmware layout
> +
> +maintainers:
> +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> +
> +description: |
> +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> +  particular purpose.
> +
> +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> +  in the input.
> +
> +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> +  needed.

How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then 
writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman 
specifc parts needed for repacking.

Rob
Simon Glass Dec. 8, 2023, 5:46 p.m. UTC | #3 
Hi Rob,

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > in various ways.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> > (no changes since v5)
> >
> > Changes in v5:
> > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > - Drop 'select: false'
> >
> > Changes in v4:
> > - Change subject line
> >
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> >
> > Changes in v2:
> > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> >
> >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > +
> > +%YAML 1.2
> > +---
> > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > +
> > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > +
> > +maintainers:
> > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > +
> > +description: |
> > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > +  particular purpose.
> > +
> > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > +  in the input.
> > +
> > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > +  needed.
>
> How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> specifc parts needed for repacking.

No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
should work OK.

Regards,
SImon
Rob Herring Dec. 8, 2023, 9:56 p.m. UTC | #4 
On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > in various ways.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > (no changes since v5)
> > >
> > > Changes in v5:
> > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > >
> > > Changes in v4:
> > > - Change subject line
> > >
> > > Changes in v3:
> > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > >
> > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > +
> > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > +
> > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > +
> > > +maintainers:
> > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > +
> > > +description: |
> > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > +  particular purpose.
> > > +
> > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > +  in the input.
> > > +
> > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > +  needed.
> >
> > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > specifc parts needed for repacking.
>
> No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> should work OK.

How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.

In the partition nodes, 'align' for example is allowed for a binman
partition but not a fixed-partition.

Note that the schema may not actually warn on extra properties ATM
because there are some issues with the schema structure. Since there
can be nested partittions, that complicates matters. It's been on my
todo list to fix.


Rob
Simon Glass Dec. 8, 2023, 10:58 p.m. UTC | #5 
Hi Rob,

On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > in various ways.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > - Change subject line
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > >
> > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > >
> > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > +
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > +
> > > > +description: |
> > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > +
> > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > +  in the input.
> > > > +
> > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > +  needed.
> > >
> > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> >
> > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > should work OK.
>
> How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.

Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
wrong path?

But if not, then whatever works is fine for now. I just want to make
some progress on this very, very old series.

>
> In the partition nodes, 'align' for example is allowed for a binman
> partition but not a fixed-partition.
>
> Note that the schema may not actually warn on extra properties ATM
> because there are some issues with the schema structure. Since there
> can be nested partittions, that complicates matters. It's been on my
> todo list to fix.

OK.

Regards,
Simon
Rob Herring Dec. 14, 2023, 5:27 p.m. UTC | #6 
On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > in various ways.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > >
> > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > >
> > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > +
> > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > +---
> > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > +
> > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > +
> > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > +
> > > > > +description: |
> > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > +
> > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > +  needed.
> > > >
> > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > >
> > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > should work OK.
> >
> > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> 
> Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> wrong path?

Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending 
fixed-partitions.

Rob
Simon Glass Dec. 14, 2023, 9:09 p.m. UTC | #7 
Hi Rob,

On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > +---
> > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > >
> > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > should work OK.
> > >
> > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> >
> > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > wrong path?
>
> Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> fixed-partitions.

Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
to make progress.

Regards,
Simon
Simon Glass Jan. 4, 2024, 9:54 p.m. UTC | #8 
Hi Rob,

On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > should work OK.
> > > >
> > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > >
> > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > wrong path?
> >
> > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > fixed-partitions.
>
> Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> to make progress.

Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
If not, what is?

In any case, please can you help with this?

Regards,
Simon
Rob Herring Jan. 17, 2024, 3:56 p.m. UTC | #9 
On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > >
> > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > >
> > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > wrong path?
> > >
> > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > fixed-partitions.
> >
> > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > to make progress.
>
> Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?

There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.

Rob
Simon Glass Feb. 4, 2024, 12:07 p.m. UTC | #10 
Hi Rob,

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > wrong path?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > fixed-partitions.
> > >
> > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > to make progress.
> >
> > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
>
> There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.

OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
fixed-partition.

Should I resend this series, or is it OK as it is?

Regards,
Simon
Miquel Raynal Feb. 5, 2024, 7:50 a.m. UTC | #11 
Hi Simon,

sjg@chromium.org wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:07:38 -0700:

> Hi Rob,
> 
> On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:  
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:  
> > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:  
> > > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > +  needed.  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > should work OK.  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > wrong path?  
> > > > >
> > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > fixed-partitions.  
> > > >
> > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > to make progress.  
> > >
> > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?  
> >
> > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.  
> 
> OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> fixed-partition.

I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
misunderstand his answer?

In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
understand all binman's output.

At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.

Thanks,
Miquèl
Simon Glass Feb. 5, 2024, 11:59 a.m. UTC | #12 
Hi Miquel,

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 at 00:50, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> sjg@chromium.org wrote on Sun, 4 Feb 2024 05:07:38 -0700:
>
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 08:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 4, 2024 at 3:54 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Rob,
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 2:09 PM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 14 Dec 2023 at 10:27, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2023 at 03:58:10PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 14:56, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 11:47 AM Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 at 08:00, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2023 at 10:28:50AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Add a compatible string for binman, so we can extend fixed-partitions
> > > > > > > > > > > in various ways.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > (no changes since v5)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v5:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Add #address/size-cells and parternProperties
> > > > > > > > > > > - Drop $ref to fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > - Drop 'select: false'
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v4:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Change subject line
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v3:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partition additional compatible string
> > > > > > > > > > > - Drop fixed-partitions from the example
> > > > > > > > > > > - Mention use of compatible instead of label
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Changes in v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > - Drop mention of 'enhanced features' in fixed-partitions.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > - Mention Binman input and output properties
> > > > > > > > > > > - Use plain partition@xxx for the node name
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml       | 68 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > >  .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml   |  1 +
> > > > > > > > > > >  MAINTAINERS                                   |  5 ++
> > > > > > > > > > >  3 files changed, 74 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > index 000000000000..329217550a98
> > > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
> > > > > > > > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > > > > > > > > +# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > > > > > > > > +---
> > > > > > > > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +title: Binman firmware layout
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +maintainers:
> > > > > > > > > > > +  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > wrong path?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > fixed-partitions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > to make progress.
> > > >
> > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
> > >
> > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.
> >
> > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > fixed-partition.
>
> I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> misunderstand his answer?
>
> In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> understand all binman's output.
>
> At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.

I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.

So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
schema?

Regards,
Simon
Miquel Raynal Feb. 5, 2024, 12:17 p.m. UTC | #13 
Hi Simon,

> > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.  
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.  
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > should work OK.  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > wrong path?  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > fixed-partitions.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > to make progress.  
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?  
> > > >
> > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.  
> > >
> > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > fixed-partition.  
> >
> > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > misunderstand his answer?
> >
> > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > understand all binman's output.
> >
> > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.  
> 
> I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> 
> So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> schema?

This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
also welcome.

Thanks,
Miquèl
Simon Glass March 8, 2024, 2:44 a.m. UTC | #14 
Hi Miquel,

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > wrong path?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > to make progress.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
> > > > >
> > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.
> > > >
> > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > fixed-partition.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > misunderstand his answer?
> > >
> > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > understand all binman's output.
> > >
> > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.
> >
> > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> >
> > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > schema?
>
> This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> also welcome.

I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.

There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
conflict?

Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
really use a little help.

Thank you,
Simon
Miquel Raynal March 8, 2024, 7:42 a.m. UTC | #15 
Hi Simon,

sjg@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >  
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.  
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.  
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.  
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.  
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > > wrong path?  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > > to make progress.  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.  
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > > fixed-partition.  
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > > misunderstand his answer?
> > > >
> > > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > > understand all binman's output.
> > > >
> > > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.  
> > >
> > > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> > >
> > > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > > schema?  
> >
> > This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> > also welcome.  
> 
> I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.
> 
> There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
> should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
> conflict?

Sorry for the confusion, there is a 'partitions' node indeed. This
node shall declare it's "programming model" (let's say), ie. how it
should be parsed. What defines this programming model today is the
'fixed-partitions' compatible. I think we (Rob and myself, but again,
Rob, please confirm) agree on the fact that we don't want to duplicate
the fixed-partitions compatible/logic and thus the binman compatible
was rejected.

Hence, in order to move forward, I would definitely appreciate an
update of the fixed-partitions binding in order to support what binman
can generate.

We are here talking about the output of binman, not its input. TBH I
haven't understood the point in having binman's input parsed by the
generic yaml binding. I would advise to focus on binman's output first
because it feels more relevant, at a first glance.

> Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
> something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
> different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
> really use a little help.

I hope the above details will help.

Thanks,
Miquèl
Simon Glass March 12, 2024, 10:25 p.m. UTC | #16 
Hi Miquel,

On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> sjg@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300:
>
> > Hi Miquel,
> >
> > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > > > wrong path?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > > > to make progress.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > > > fixed-partition.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > > > misunderstand his answer?
> > > > >
> > > > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > > > understand all binman's output.
> > > > >
> > > > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.
> > > >
> > > > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> > > >
> > > > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > > > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > > > schema?
> > >
> > > This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> > > also welcome.
> >
> > I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.
> >
> > There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
> > should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
> > conflict?
>
> Sorry for the confusion, there is a 'partitions' node indeed. This
> node shall declare it's "programming model" (let's say), ie. how it
> should be parsed. What defines this programming model today is the
> 'fixed-partitions' compatible. I think we (Rob and myself, but again,
> Rob, please confirm) agree on the fact that we don't want to duplicate
> the fixed-partitions compatible/logic and thus the binman compatible
> was rejected.
>
> Hence, in order to move forward, I would definitely appreciate an
> update of the fixed-partitions binding in order to support what binman
> can generate.

OK, so I think my confusion is that I thought you were referring to a
'partitions' compatible. But you are just referring to the name of the
node being 'partitions', with the compatible string being
'fixed-partitions'.

I believe I can make this work by adding a new 'binman.yaml' with the
compatibles that I want to introduce. I cannot change partition.yaml
since it does not itself specify a compatible.

>
> We are here talking about the output of binman, not its input. TBH I
> haven't understood the point in having binman's input parsed by the
> generic yaml binding. I would advise to focus on binman's output first
> because it feels more relevant, at a first glance.

Yes that is fine.

>
> > Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
> > something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
> > different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
> > really use a little help.
>
> I hope the above details will help.

I think so, thank you. I will send another version.

Regards,
Simon
Miquel Raynal March 13, 2024, 7:35 a.m. UTC | #17 
Hi Simon,

sjg@chromium.org wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:25:42 +1300:

> Hi Miquel,
> 
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > sjg@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300:
> >  
> > > Hi Miquel,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:  
> > > >
> > > > Hi Simon,
> > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.  
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.  
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.  
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.  
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrong path?  
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.  
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > > > > to make progress.  
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?  
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.  
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > > > > fixed-partition.  
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > > > > misunderstand his answer?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > > > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > > > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > > > > understand all binman's output.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.  
> > > > >
> > > > > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> > > > >
> > > > > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > > > > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > > > > schema?  
> > > >
> > > > This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> > > > also welcome.  
> > >
> > > I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.
> > >
> > > There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
> > > should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
> > > conflict?  
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion, there is a 'partitions' node indeed. This
> > node shall declare it's "programming model" (let's say), ie. how it
> > should be parsed. What defines this programming model today is the
> > 'fixed-partitions' compatible. I think we (Rob and myself, but again,
> > Rob, please confirm) agree on the fact that we don't want to duplicate
> > the fixed-partitions compatible/logic and thus the binman compatible
> > was rejected.
> >
> > Hence, in order to move forward, I would definitely appreciate an
> > update of the fixed-partitions binding in order to support what binman
> > can generate.  
> 
> OK, so I think my confusion is that I thought you were referring to a
> 'partitions' compatible. But you are just referring to the name of the
> node being 'partitions', with the compatible string being
> 'fixed-partitions'.

Yes.

> 
> I believe I can make this work by adding a new 'binman.yaml' with the
> compatibles that I want to introduce. I cannot change partition.yaml
> since it does not itself specify a compatible.

What about fixed-partitions.ymal? The yaml file name should match the
compatible.

> > We are here talking about the output of binman, not its input. TBH I
> > haven't understood the point in having binman's input parsed by the
> > generic yaml binding. I would advise to focus on binman's output first
> > because it feels more relevant, at a first glance.  
> 
> Yes that is fine.
> 
> >  
> > > Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
> > > something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
> > > different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
> > > really use a little help.  
> >
> > I hope the above details will help.  
> 
> I think so, thank you. I will send another version.
> 
> Regards,
> Simon


Thanks,
Miquèl
Simon Glass March 14, 2024, 2:15 a.m. UTC | #18 
Hi Miquel,

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 at 20:35, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> sjg@chromium.org wrote on Wed, 13 Mar 2024 11:25:42 +1300:
>
> > Hi Miquel,
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2024 at 20:42, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Simon,
> > >
> > > sjg@chromium.org wrote on Fri, 8 Mar 2024 15:44:25 +1300:
> > >
> > > > Hi Miquel,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 at 01:17, Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +description: |
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  particular purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  in the input.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +  needed.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this going to work exactly? binman reads these nodes and then
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > writes out 'fixed-partitions' nodes. But then you've lost the binman
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > specifc parts needed for repacking.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are the same node. I do want the extra information to stick
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > around. So long as it is compatible with fixed-partition as well, this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should work OK.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > How can it be both? The partitions node compatible can be either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'fixed-partitions' or 'binman'.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Can we not allow it to be both? I have tried to adjust things in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > response to feedback but perhaps the feedback was leading me down the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong path?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sure, but then the schema has to and that means extending
> > > > > > > > > > > > fixed-partitions.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Can we cross that bridge later? There might be resistance to it. I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > not sure. For now, perhaps just a binman compatible works well enough
> > > > > > > > > > > to make progress.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Is there any way to make progress on this? I would like to have
> > > > > > > > > > software which doesn't understand the binman compatible to at least be
> > > > > > > > > > able to understand the fixed-partition compatible. Is that acceptable?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > There's only 2 ways that it can work. Either binman writes out
> > > > > > > > > fixed-partition nodes dropping/replacing anything only defined for
> > > > > > > > > binman or fixed-partition is extended to include what binman needs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > OK, then I suppose the best way is to add a new binman compatible, as
> > > > > > > > is done with this v6 series. People then need to choose it instead of
> > > > > > > > fixed-partition.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sorry this is not at all what Rob suggested, or did I totally
> > > > > > > misunderstand his answer?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In both cases the solution is to generate a "fixed-partition" node. Now
> > > > > > > up to you to decide whether binman should adapt the output to the
> > > > > > > current schema, or if the current schema should be extended to
> > > > > > > understand all binman's output.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At least that is my understanding and also what I kind of agree with.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I do want to binman schema to include all the features of Binman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So are you saying that there should not be a 'binman'  schema, but I
> > > > > > should just add all the binman properties to the fixed-partition
> > > > > > schema?
> > > > >
> > > > > This is my current understanding, yes. But acknowledgment from Rob is
> > > > > also welcome.
> > > >
> > > > I am trying again to wade through all the confusion here.
> > > >
> > > > There is not actually a 'fixed-partition' node. So are you saying I
> > > > should add one? There is already a 'partitions' node. Won't they
> > > > conflict?
> > >
> > > Sorry for the confusion, there is a 'partitions' node indeed. This
> > > node shall declare it's "programming model" (let's say), ie. how it
> > > should be parsed. What defines this programming model today is the
> > > 'fixed-partitions' compatible. I think we (Rob and myself, but again,
> > > Rob, please confirm) agree on the fact that we don't want to duplicate
> > > the fixed-partitions compatible/logic and thus the binman compatible
> > > was rejected.
> > >
> > > Hence, in order to move forward, I would definitely appreciate an
> > > update of the fixed-partitions binding in order to support what binman
> > > can generate.
> >
> > OK, so I think my confusion is that I thought you were referring to a
> > 'partitions' compatible. But you are just referring to the name of the
> > node being 'partitions', with the compatible string being
> > 'fixed-partitions'.
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > I believe I can make this work by adding a new 'binman.yaml' with the
> > compatibles that I want to introduce. I cannot change partition.yaml
> > since it does not itself specify a compatible.
>
> What about fixed-partitions.ymal? The yaml file name should match the
> compatible.

But we already decided we cannot add a new 'binman' compatible but
want to use the existing fixed-partitions.yaml

I cannot add compatible strings into that, since these are defined by
the default files which make use of partition.yaml

Anyway, I will see v7 so you can see what I mean.

>
> > > We are here talking about the output of binman, not its input. TBH I
> > > haven't understood the point in having binman's input parsed by the
> > > generic yaml binding. I would advise to focus on binman's output first
> > > because it feels more relevant, at a first glance.
> >
> > Yes that is fine.
> >
> > >
> > > > Would it be possible for you to look at my patches and suggest
> > > > something? I think at this point, after so many hours of trying
> > > > different things and trying to understand what is needed, I could
> > > > really use a little help.
> > >
> > > I hope the above details will help.
> >
> > I think so, thank you. I will send another version.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon

Regards,
Simon
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..329217550a98
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@ 
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+# Copyright 2023 Google LLC
+
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Binman firmware layout
+
+maintainers:
+  - Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
+
+description: |
+  The binman node provides a layout for firmware, used when packaging firmware
+  from multiple projects. It is based on fixed-partitions, with some
+  extensions, but uses 'compatible' to indicate the contents of the node, to
+  avoid perturbing or confusing existing installations which use 'label' for a
+  particular purpose.
+
+  Binman supports properties used as inputs to the firmware-packaging process,
+  such as those which control alignment of partitions. This binding addresses
+  these 'input' properties. For example, it is common for the 'reg' property
+  (an 'output' property) to be set by Binman, based on the alignment requested
+  in the input.
+
+  Once processing is complete, input properties have mostly served their
+  purpose, at least until the firmware is repacked later, e.g. due to a
+  firmware update. The 'fixed-partitions' binding should provide enough
+  information to read the firmware at runtime, including decompression if
+  needed.
+
+  Documentation for Binman is available at:
+
+  https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/package/binman.html
+
+  with the current image-description format at:
+
+  https://u-boot.readthedocs.io/en/latest/develop/package/binman.html#image-description-format
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    const: binman
+
+  "#address-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+  "#size-cells":
+    const: 1
+
+patternProperties:
+  "^partition(-.+|@[0-9a-f]+)$":
+    $ref: partition.yaml
+
+additionalProperties: false
+
+examples:
+  - |
+    partitions {
+        compatible = "binman";
+        #address-cells = <1>;
+        #size-cells = <1>;
+
+        partition@100000 {
+            label = "u-boot";
+            reg = <0x100000 0xf00000>;
+        };
+    };
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml
index 1dda2c80747b..849fd15d085c 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@  maintainers:
 
 oneOf:
   - $ref: arm,arm-firmware-suite.yaml
+  - $ref: binman.yaml
   - $ref: brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml
   - $ref: brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions.yaml
   - $ref: fixed-partitions.yaml
diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index b294edaf5698..8704eefe6e2a 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS
@@ -3550,6 +3550,11 @@  F:	Documentation/filesystems/bfs.rst
 F:	fs/bfs/
 F:	include/uapi/linux/bfs_fs.h
 
+BINMAN
+M:	Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
+S:	Supported
+F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman*
+
 BITMAP API
 M:	Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>
 R:	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>