[PATCH] dt/bindings: fwu-mdata-mtd: drop changes outside FWU

Ilias Apalodimas ilias.apalodimas at linaro.org
Thu May 4 18:30:45 CEST 2023

Replying to both Jassi and Tom here since it makes more sense,

On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 19:19, Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 10:39:06AM -0500, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 May 2023 at 10:19, Rob Herring <robh+dt at kernel.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 9:01 AM Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh at linaro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >  I may be wrong, but I see having fwu properties contained within the
> > > > fwu node is cleaner than having them embedded into existing bindings
> > > > (potentially different classes in future). So I moved to the current
> > > > design.
> > >
> > > Having all the information related to a device/node in one place is cleaner IMO.
> > >
> > > As I said, if u-boot wants private interfaces between the DT and
> > > itself, then fine, but that should remain private and be stripped by
> > > u-boot. A separate node would certainly be easier for doing that.
> > >
> > Seems we are on the same page(?). Current implementation does exactly
> > that -- we have a separate fwu node containing all the properties it
> > needs.

I think Rob is saying the exact opposite.  The way I see it we either
- Keep the bindings as an internal u-boot ABI, in which case the
current format is fine, but we need to strip it from the DT before
handing it over to the OS.
- Alternatively, if we want to submit it upstream, we need to change
where that data lives and ideally have them under existing partition

Both would work, with the latter offering a bit more standardization
if another bootloader tries to implement something similar.

> Well, isn't part of why we're here is that this isn't strictly a U-Boot
> only thing? My question is can, and then is, this also being used in
> other projects yet?

I am not aware of any other projects currently using it.  I'll repeat
myself though, it would be useful to have the format standardized in
case other bootloaders have similar needs.  In any case I am happy
with the discussion so far.  We (as in u-boot) need to decide which of
the above directions suits as best and either send the bindings
upstream, or clean then up before we boot.


> --
> Tom

More information about the U-Boot mailing list