Hi again, one comment and a slightly conceptual question:
> -----Original Message----- > From: openwrt-devel [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Tomasz Maciej Nowak > Sent: Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2020 18:17 > To: [email protected] > Cc: Vladimir Georgievsky <[email protected]> > Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ath79: airtight c-75: use second flash chip > > The flash capacity is divided in two flash chips and currently only first is > used. > Increase available space for OpenWrt by additional 16 MiB using mtd-concat > driver. Because U-Boot might not be able to load kernel image spanned > through two flash chips, the size of kernel is limited to space available on > first > chip. > > Cc: Vladimir Georgievsky <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Tomasz Maciej Nowak <[email protected]> > --- > v1 -> v2 > > - add kernel size constraints > > .../linux/ath79/dts/qca9550_airtight_c-75.dts | 24 +++++++++++++++---- > target/linux/ath79/image/generic.mk | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/target/linux/ath79/dts/qca9550_airtight_c-75.dts > b/target/linux/ath79/dts/qca9550_airtight_c-75.dts > index 34d4c32b3562..c380a109c96b 100644 > --- a/target/linux/ath79/dts/qca9550_airtight_c-75.dts > +++ b/target/linux/ath79/dts/qca9550_airtight_c-75.dts > @@ -41,6 +41,23 @@ > linux,default-trigger = "phy1tpt"; > }; > }; > + > + mtd-concat { I think I will change the node name to virtual_flash, as that's the most common case so far and I personally like it more. > + compatible = "mtd-concat"; > + devices = <&concat0 &concat1>; > + > + partitions { > + compatible = "fixed-partitions"; > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <1>; > + > + partition@0 { > + label = "firmware"; > + reg = <0x0 0x1f90000>; > + compatible = "denx,uimage"; > + }; > + }; > + }; > }; > > ð0 { > @@ -120,10 +137,8 @@ > read-only; > }; > > - partition@60000 { > - label = "firmware"; > + concat0: partition@60000 { > reg = <0x060000 0xf90000>; > - compatible = "denx,uimage"; > }; > > art: partition@ff0000 { > @@ -144,8 +159,7 @@ > #address-cells = <1>; > #size-cells = <1>; > > - partition@0 { > - label = "opt"; I wonder what's best practice here: Many devices keep a label here and just use names like "firmware1", "firmware2" or similar. Does it make sense to keep the concatenated partitions available under such a name (because the user might want to do something with it) or would it be better to remove the label and thus "hide" the partition (because the user might want to do something with it)? Best Adrian > + concat1: partition@0 { > reg = <0x0 0x1000000>; > }; > }; > diff --git a/target/linux/ath79/image/generic.mk > b/target/linux/ath79/image/generic.mk > index 177caafa2253..bdc35823c66c 100644 > --- a/target/linux/ath79/image/generic.mk > +++ b/target/linux/ath79/image/generic.mk > @@ -246,7 +246,8 @@ define Device/airtight_c-75 > DEVICE_ALT1_VENDOR := WatchGuard > DEVICE_ALT1_MODEL := AP320 > DEVICE_PACKAGES := ath10k-firmware-qca988x kmod-ath10k-ct kmod- > usb2 > - IMAGE_SIZE := 15936k > + IMAGE_SIZE := 32320k > + KERNEL_SIZE := 15936k > endef > TARGET_DEVICES += airtight_c-75 > > -- > 2.29.2 > > > _______________________________________________ > openwrt-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
openpgp-digital-signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
