On Wed, 4 Oct 2023 at 00:42, Trevor Woerner <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue 2023-10-03 @ 12:22:01 PM, Quentin Schulz wrote: > > Hi Anthony, > > > > On 10/3/23 03:26, Anthony Davies via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > > > From: Anthony Davies <[email protected]> > > > > > > When checking the partition table of builds using this layer you get > > > numerous extra partitions due to each bootloader entry creating a > > > partition. --no-table on these entries should stop this from happening. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anthony Davies <[email protected]> > > > > While this is annoying in some aspects, it's also very nice when you want to > > flash a new U-Boot manually for example. You just need to flash the raw file > > in the partition directly instead of having to figure out which offset to > > use. FWIW, I actually do flash by offset instead of by partition and I have > > to remember the offsets for different products (we don't use Rockchip's > > defaults :) ) and I guess this would make things easier. > > > > So, > > Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]> > > > > Up to Trevor to decide what to do with the patch :) > > The whole point of partitions is to keep things safely separated from each > other, avoid overruns that clobber adjacent things, and make it easier to > modify contents (flash a partition instead of magic offsets). I've worked with > a device that had hidden/magic offsets and ended up redefining the partition > table to call everything its own partition. > > I don't know what we'd be gaining be keeping these "partitions" hidden? > > > > > Cheers, > > Quentin > > > > > --- > > > wic/rockchip.wks | 10 +++++----- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/wic/rockchip.wks b/wic/rockchip.wks > > > index 1cc30ae..eb50d8c 100644 > > > --- a/wic/rockchip.wks > > > +++ b/wic/rockchip.wks > > > @@ -15,11 +15,11 @@ > > > # boot 32768 229376 > > > # root 262144 - (suggested) > > > -part loader1 --offset 32 --fixed-size 4000K --source > > > rawcopy > > > --sourceparams="file=${SPL_BINARY}" > > > -part reserved1 --offset 4032 --fixed-size 64K > > > -part reserved2 --offset 4096 --fixed-size 4096K > > > -part loader2 --offset 8192 --fixed-size 4096K --source > > > rawcopy > > > --sourceparams="file=u-boot.${UBOOT_SUFFIX}" > > > -part atf --offset 12288 --fixed-size 4096K > > > +part loader1 --offset 32 --fixed-size 4000K --source > > > rawcopy --no-table > > > --sourceparams="file=${SPL_BINARY}" > > > +part reserved1 --offset 4032 --fixed-size 64K > > > --no-table > > > +part reserved2 --offset 4096 --fixed-size 4096K > > > --no-table > > > +part loader2 --offset 8192 --fixed-size 4096K --source > > > rawcopy --no-table > > > --sourceparams="file=u-boot.${UBOOT_SUFFIX}" > > > +part atf --offset 12288 --fixed-size 4096K > > > --no-table > > > part /boot --offset 16384 --size 114688K --active --source > > > bootimg-partition --fstype=vfat --label boot --use-uuid > > > --sourceparams="loader=u-boot" > > > part / --source > > > rootfs --fstype=ext4 --label root --use-uuid > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Differences in style I guess. To me a partition is really something you are supposed to be able to format and mount.
To be honest I would be more likely to format the wrong partition and blow away the binary as I would over run or use an incorrect offset, I tend to format more then replace a binary file manually. Having partitions for u-boot binaries is not something I have come across before I agree with Quentin, ultimately it's up to you as the maintainer.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#61226): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/61226 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/101726546/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
