On 2018-07-30 04:09 AM, Thibaut wrote: > > >> Le 30 juil. 2018 à 08:40, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> a écrit : >> >> >> >> On 29/07/18 11:07, Thibaut VARÈNE wrote: >>> This patch improves 5684d087418d176cfdef4e045e1950ca7ba3b09f by correcting >>> the partition scheme for the "RouterBoot" section of the flash. >>> >>> This section is subdivided in several segments, as they are on ar71xx >>> RB devices, albeit with different offsets and sizes. The naming convention >>> from ar71xx has been preserved. The preferred 'fixed-partitions' DTS >>> node syntax is used, with nesting support as introduced in 2a598bbaa3. >>> >>> The OEM source code also define a "RouterBootFake" partition at the >>> beginning of the secondary flash chip: to avoid trouble if OEM ever makes >>> use of that space, it is also defined here. >> >> as discussed on IRC we concluded, that this should be done with a mtd >> splitter. >> John > > I’m sorry, we didn’t conclude anything, I believe you demanded it be done so. > > Unfortunately, after a more careful investigation, I am now convinced this is > not the right course of action. Here’s why, in my very humble opinion and > limited understanding: > > - this splitter will be quite intrusive in generic code (currently « mtdsplit > » only works with « firmware » and « rootfs » named partitions) > - the bootloaders (routerboot and routerboot2) cannot be programmatically > splitted: they are raw machine code without a signature > - all ramips routerboard machines share the exact same partition scheme which > is different from all the ar71xx routerboard machines (which also all share > the same scheme) > - if I read the OEM source code correctly, it’s likely their ARM-based boards > have yet another partition scheme > > Consequently, a purported splitter will be invasive and full of hardcoded > numbers, making its upstream acceptance very unlikely (I anticipate the > argument « this should all be done in DTS, especially now that DTS supports > nested partitions »). > > Now, I would like to hope that a correct partition scheme that uses all the > OpenWRT-accepted features and follows guidelines would be more likely to be > accepted in the source than the currently broken, incorrect and incomplete > existing one. >
I'm not sure but I think https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/commit/2a598bbaa3f75b7051c2453a6ccf706191cf2153 (kernel: backport mtd support for subpartitions in DT) might be of use here... _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
