From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1gD2fA-0006eh-AU for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:24:10 +0000 Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 09:23:56 +0200 From: "s.hauer@pengutronix.de" Message-ID: <20181018072356.cnkzl62v4yebvifg@pengutronix.de> References: <20181017084707.11878-1-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <5017d68f9bbcab2c4e3af5c20d29d3452fe6410f.camel@eckelmann.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5017d68f9bbcab2c4e3af5c20d29d3452fe6410f.camel@eckelmann.de> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: fix reproducible node name for legacy vs. new partition binding To: "Schenk, Gavin" Cc: "barebox@lists.infradead.org" , =?iso-8859-15?Q?G=F6tzinger=2C?= Jonathan 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 partiti= on > > 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 > > Tested-by: Ulrich =D6lmann > Tested-by: Gavin Schenk > = > What I did to test it: > = > 1. [x] of_partition_binding=3Dnew in barebox and barebox-state in Linux i= s working. > 2. [ ] set of_partition_binding=3Dlegacy in barebox and barebox-state in = Linux fails. > 3. [x] apply the patch and rebuild and install barebox > 4. [x] set of_partition_binding=3Dlegacy and barebox-state in Linux is wo= rking 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=3Dnew. 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