Sorry about that. I am redefining both the flash nodes here with proper indentation.
flash@0 { compatible = "jedec,spi-nor" ... partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
flash0_partition: partition@0 { label = "part0_0"; reg = <0x0 0x800000>; };}; };
flash@1 { compatible = "jedec,spi-nor" ... partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>;
flash1_partition: partition@0 { label = "part0_1"; reg = <0x0 0x800000>; };}; };
compatible = "fixed-partitions"; concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>; flash0_partition: partition@0 { label = "part0_0"; reg = <0x0 0x800000>; } }} flash@1 { compatible = "jedec,spi-nor" ... partitions { compatible = "fixed-partitions"; concat-partition = <&flash0_partition &flash1_partition>; flash1_partition: partition@0 { label = "part0_1"; reg = <0x0 0x800000>; } } }
This approach has a limitation I didn't think about before: you cannot use anything else than fixed partitions as partition parser.
Yes, that's correct—it won't function when partitions are defined via the command line. In my opinion, we should start by adding support for fixed partitions, add comments in code stating the same. If needed, we can later extend the support to dynamic partitions as well.
New thought. What if it was a pure fixed-partition capability? That's actually what we
Yes, I agree—it’s better to present it as a purely fixed-partition capability.
Regards, Amit
want: defining fixed partitions through device boundaries. It automatically removes the need for further dynamic partition extensions.
Thanks, Miquèl