The partition bindings fail to restrict undefined properties. This is 
primarily on fixed-partitions which can be nested and partition nodes 
without a compatible string. This series fixes those issues and then 
several problems exposed by restricting undefined properties. As part of 
this, the schema structure is reworked to follow more conventional 
structure of applying schemas by compatible and a schema only checks 1 
level of nodes (unless possible child nodes are fixed).

In theory, we could have all sorts of combinations of different 
partition types nesting, and those may or may not work. No attempt is 
made to support them here. Only the known cases are supported.

Rob

Signed-off-by: Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>
---
Rob Herring (Arm) (10):
      dt-bindings: mtd: brcm,brcmnand: Drop "brcm,brcmnand" compatible for iProc
      dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Move "compression" to partition node
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Move "sercomm,scpart-id" to partition.yaml
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Allow "nvmem-layout" in generic partition nodes
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Define "#{address,size}-cells" in specific schemas
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Drop partitions.yaml
      dt-bindings: mtd: Ensure partition node properties are documented
      dt-bindings: mtd: fixed-partitions: Restrict undefined properties
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Convert brcm,trx to DT schema
      dt-bindings: mtd: partitions: Combine simple partition bindings

 .../devicetree/bindings/mmc/mmc-card.yaml          | 20 ++-----
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/brcm,brcmnand.yaml     |  1 -
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/mtd.yaml     | 10 +---
 .../mtd/partitions/arm,arm-firmware-suite.yaml     |  2 -
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/binman.yaml | 53 ------------------
 .../mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm4908-partitions.yaml    |  8 +--
 .../partitions/brcm,bcm947xx-cfe-partitions.yaml   |  2 -
 .../mtd/partitions/brcm,bcm963xx-imagetag.txt      | 45 ---------------
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,trx.txt           | 42 --------------
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/brcm,trx.yaml          | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/fixed-partitions.yaml  | 43 ++++----------
 .../mtd/partitions/linksys,ns-partitions.yaml      | 10 +---
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partition.yaml         | 44 ++++++++++++++-
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/partitions.yaml        | 42 --------------
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/redboot-fis.yaml       |  4 --
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/seama.yaml  | 44 ---------------
 .../bindings/mtd/partitions/simple-partition.yaml  | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++
 .../partitions/tplink,safeloader-partitions.yaml   |  2 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/partitions/u-boot.yaml |  2 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,davinci-nand.yaml   |  4 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/ti,gpmc-onenand.yaml   |  2 +-
 MAINTAINERS                                        |  5 --
 22 files changed, 196 insertions(+), 315 deletions(-)
---
base-commit: fc4e91c639c0af93d63c3d5bc0ee45515dd7504a
change-id: 20260108-dt-mtd-partitions-3fd58ebadfa0

Best regards,
--  
Rob Herring (Arm) <robh@kernel.org>

Hello Rob,

On 08/01/2026 at 11:53:09 -06, "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@kernel.org> wrote:

> The partition bindings fail to restrict undefined properties. This is 
> primarily on fixed-partitions which can be nested and partition nodes 
> without a compatible string. This series fixes those issues and then 
> several problems exposed by restricting undefined properties. As part of 
> this, the schema structure is reworked to follow more conventional 
> structure of applying schemas by compatible and a schema only checks 1 
> level of nodes (unless possible child nodes are fixed).

The series does not apply cleanly, I tried mtd/next and then
v6.19-rc1. Can you please rebase it and fix the conflicts (at least 2
patches fail, and then I stopped)?

Thanks,
Miquèl

On Mon, Jan 19, 2026 at 4:48 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 08/01/2026 at 11:53:09 -06, "Rob Herring (Arm)" <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> > The partition bindings fail to restrict undefined properties. This is
> > primarily on fixed-partitions which can be nested and partition nodes
> > without a compatible string. This series fixes those issues and then
> > several problems exposed by restricting undefined properties. As part of
> > this, the schema structure is reworked to follow more conventional
> > structure of applying schemas by compatible and a schema only checks 1
> > level of nodes (unless possible child nodes are fixed).
>
> The series does not apply cleanly, I tried mtd/next and then
> v6.19-rc1. Can you please rebase it and fix the conflicts (at least 2
> patches fail, and then I stopped)?

I rebased on mtd/next and sent v2. I only saw one conflict though, and
that was with seama.yaml. That's going to conflict with Linus' tree,
but the resolution is take the deleted file.

Rob

Hello,

>> The series does not apply cleanly, I tried mtd/next and then
>> v6.19-rc1. Can you please rebase it and fix the conflicts (at least 2
>> patches fail, and then I stopped)?
>
> I rebased on mtd/next and sent v2. I only saw one conflict though, and
> that was with seama.yaml. That's going to conflict with Linus' tree,
> but the resolution is take the deleted file.

I didn't see where this seama file was modified, except for Linus W.'s
address change. Is there an -rc I need to pull? Or an immutable tag?

Maybe this series applies on top of your next branch? I can give an ack
for the full series if that's the case and you can take it.

I generally try my best to avoid conflicts at merge.

Thanks,
Miquèl

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 8:56 AM Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> >> The series does not apply cleanly, I tried mtd/next and then
> >> v6.19-rc1. Can you please rebase it and fix the conflicts (at least 2
> >> patches fail, and then I stopped)?
> >
> > I rebased on mtd/next and sent v2. I only saw one conflict though, and
> > that was with seama.yaml. That's going to conflict with Linus' tree,
> > but the resolution is take the deleted file.
>
> I didn't see where this seama file was modified, except for Linus W.'s
> address change. Is there an -rc I need to pull? Or an immutable tag?

That's the only modification and it is in 6.19-rc2.

> Maybe this series applies on top of your next branch? I can give an ack
> for the full series if that's the case and you can take it.
>
> I generally try my best to avoid conflicts at merge.

That's not really necessary for trivial merge resolutions like this one.

Rob

On 20/01/2026 15:56, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> Hello,
> 
>>> The series does not apply cleanly, I tried mtd/next and then
>>> v6.19-rc1. Can you please rebase it and fix the conflicts (at least 2
>>> patches fail, and then I stopped)?
>>
>> I rebased on mtd/next and sent v2. I only saw one conflict though, and
>> that was with seama.yaml. That's going to conflict with Linus' tree,
>> but the resolution is take the deleted file.
> 
> I didn't see where this seama file was modified, except for Linus W.'s
> address change. Is there an -rc I need to pull? Or an immutable tag?
> 
> Maybe this series applies on top of your next branch? I can give an ack
> for the full series if that's the case and you can take it.
> 
> I generally try my best to avoid conflicts at merge.

For the record, v2 applied cleanly on mtd/next.

Best regards,
Krzysztof