From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from v-smtpout3.han.skanova.net ([81.236.60.156]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.87 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1e0PsY-0002jZ-GJ for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 06 Oct 2017 10:29:16 +0000 References: <6f652c2e-d971-052d-8e96-3ae7ad984500@solidxs.nl> <20171006041153.xgrjynzwido3mjfj@pengutronix.de> <4201a4ed-f5ae-2cae-e07c-1e95dbb538df@solidxs.nl> <4cda0e44-6ac4-8186-2453-0d55919727ef@mev.co.uk> From: Marcel Hamer Message-ID: <0ad15ca1-bad1-a631-89fa-53ddc4ba224e@solidxs.nl> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2017 12:28:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4cda0e44-6ac4-8186-2453-0d55919727ef@mev.co.uk> Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed" Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Kernel device tree gets modified with bootm command when CONFIG_OFDEVICE is enabled To: Ian Abbott , Sascha Hauer Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org Hello Ian, On 10/06/2017 11:55 AM, Ian Abbott wrote: > On 06/10/17 08:45, Marcel Hamer wrote: >> It kind of sounds like the boot loader is deciding it is smarter than = >> the developer and overriding the settings in the dtb before it passes = >> it to the kernel. I also see it as kind of strange, when you = >> configure a partition table in your dtb for the kernel and once you = >> boot the kernel you get the partition table from the boot loader. = >> Especially since I don't think this is documented anywhere, at least = >> not in the bootm command documentation as far as I know. > > There is a magic variable setting to leave the partition entries alone: > > =A0 global.of_partition_binding=3D"donttouch" > > (Other meaningful values for this variable are "new" and "legacy", = > which controls whether the individual partitions are placed within a = > "partitions" node ("new") or not ("legacy").) > Thank you for pointing that option out, I will certainly have a look at = that. I took the partitioning as an example, because it gave me the biggest = burden. But I guess in general I think the principle of fixing up the = kernel device tree should be optional to my opinion. Kind regards, Marcel _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox