Re: [PATCH v6 1/9] block: partitions: of: Skip child nodes without reg property

On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 11:46 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 2:59 PM Loic Poulain
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rob,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 8:02 PM Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 10:55:20AM +0200, Loic Poulain wrote:
> > > > Child nodes of a fixed-partitions node are not necessarily partition
> > > > entries, for example an nvmem-layout node has no reg property. The
> > > > current code passes a NULL reg pointer and uninitialized len to the
> > > > length check, which can result in a kernel panic or silent failure to
> > > > register any partitions.
> > >
> > > That does not sound right to me. A fixed-partitions node should only be
> > > defining partitions with address ranges. I would expect a partition node
> > > could be nvmem-layout, but not the whole address range. If you wanted
> > > the latter, then just do:
> > >
> > > partitions {
> > >   ...
> > > };
> > >
> > > nvmem-layout {
> > >   ...
> > > };
> >
> > In our case, the nvmem-layout needs to be associated with a specific
> > eMMC hardware partition, nvmem cells can be a simple sub-range within
> > the global eMMC, each hardware partition (boot0, boot1, user...)
> > having its own address spaces.
> >
> > That said, your point about not abusing fixed-partitions is valid. I
> > initially dropped the compatible = "fixed-partitions" from the
> > partitions-boot1 node when it only carries an nvmem-layout and no
> > actual partition entries, making it a plain named container node. But
> > it's a bit fragile if we want to support both nvmem-layout and
> > fixed-partitions.
> >
> > Regarding your expectation of a partition node being a nvmem-layout,
> > do you mean that the nvmem-layout should live under a fixed-partitions
> > node? Something along these lines:
> >
> > partitions-boot1 {
> >       compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> >       #address-cells = <1>;
> >       #size-cells = <1>;
> >
> >       nvmem@4400 {
>
> partition@4400
>
> >           reg = <0x4400 0x1000>;
> >
> >           nvmem-layout {
> >               compatible = "fixed-layout";
> >               #address-cells = <1>;
> >               #size-cells = <1>;
> >
> >               wifi_mac_addr: mac-addr@0 {
> >                   compatible = "mac-base";
> >                   reg = <0x0 0x6>;
> >                   #nvmem-cell-cells = <1>;
> >               };
> >       [...]
>
> Either this or replacing "fixed-partitions" with "fixed-layout" if you
> want to make the whole boot1 partition nvmem-layout looks like the
> right way to me.

Well, now I think both approaches make sense. We should support a
fixed-layout on the entire hw-part/block, while also allowing it
within individual logical partitions.
Support for the former would only require a small rework/addition in
this series (to have the hw boot partition a fixed-layout) . The
latter could come in a follow-up series, as it would require some
additional fwnode logic.

>
> > That makes some sense, this would require extra work for the
> > emmc/block layer to also associate fwnodes with logical partitions,
> > not just the whole disk/hw (hw part), Is that the direction you'd like
> > us to go?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Also, Note that regardless of which approach we settle on, this
> > specific fix/patch remains necessary to validate the partition node
> > and prevent NULL-deref.
>
> Fair enough, though the reasoning for it would be different and
> perhaps should give a warning.

Sure.

Thanks,
Loic