From: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: "Schenk, Gavin" <G.Schenk@eckelmann.de>
Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" <barebox@lists.infradead.org>,
"Götzinger, Jonathan" <J.Goetzinger@eckelmann.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: fix reproducible node name for legacy vs. new partition binding
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:23:56 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181018072356.cnkzl62v4yebvifg@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5017d68f9bbcab2c4e3af5c20d29d3452fe6410f.camel@eckelmann.de>
Hi Gavin,
On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 11:07:45AM +0000, Schenk, Gavin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2018-10-17 at 10:47 +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > the of_reproducible_name mechanism is used to find a partition node
> > from the barebox devicetree in the Linux devicetree. Unfortunately
> > we have two different partition bindings. In the legacy one the partition
> > nodes are directly under the hardware devicenode whereas in the new
> > binding the partitions are under an additional partitions subnode.
> > This means we get two different (not so) reproducible names when
> > the barebox devicetree uses the legacy binding and the Linux devicetree
> > uses the new binding (or the other way round). To get the same
> > name then for these cases we drop the partitions subnode from the
> > reproducible name.
> >
> > This makes the partition fixup in barebox-state work when the barebox
> > devicetree uses another binding than the Linux devicetree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
> > Tested-by: Ulrich Ölmann <u.oelmann@pengutronix.de>
> Tested-by: Gavin Schenk <g.schenk@eckelmann.de>
>
> What I did to test it:
>
> 1. [x] of_partition_binding=new in barebox and barebox-state in Linux is working.
> 2. [ ] set of_partition_binding=legacy in barebox and barebox-state in Linux fails.
> 3. [x] apply the patch and rebuild and install barebox
> 4. [x] set of_partition_binding=legacy and barebox-state in Linux is working again \o/.
>
> Is this test sufficient?
> If not what are other usefull testcases?
Thanks for testing.
Another test would be if you use the legacy binding in your barebox
devicetree and then set of_partition_binding=new. Without this patch it
should fail in Linux and with it it should work. That's the less
important case though.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-18 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-17 8:47 Sascha Hauer
2018-10-17 11:07 ` Schenk, Gavin
2018-10-18 7:23 ` s.hauer [this message]
2018-10-18 9:07 ` Schenk, Gavin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181018072356.cnkzl62v4yebvifg@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=G.Schenk@eckelmann.de \
--cc=J.Goetzinger@eckelmann.de \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox