qcs615-ride eMMC vs UFS partitions.conf

[lool]

Hi

I was studying qcs615-ride files as it's the only platform with both emmc and ufs support, but they differ in a number of ways and I can't always tell which side has the "right" implementation. I asked an LLM to compare (see below), except for the obvious usage of LUNs in UFS and the different sector sizes, I believe all other differences shouldn't exist?

Thanks

Comparison: QCS615-Ride eMMC vs. UFS

1. Structural Differences

• Storage Topology: UFS uses LUNs (0-4), whereas eMMC is a flat list of partitions.
• Sector Size: eMMC uses 512 bytes, while UFS uses 4096 bytes.
• Redundancy: UFS defines LUN 1 (Boot A) and LUN 2 (Boot B) with identical boot partitions (xbl). eMMC defines these partitions once in the main list.

2. Partition Presence & Size Differences

• Missing in UFS (Present in eMMC):

  • core_nhlos_a/b (Large ~174MB partitions)
  • cmnlib_a/b, cmnlib64_a/b
  • keymaster_a/b (Note: keymaster is missing in this specific UFS config, though usually present)
  • secs2d_a/b, cateloader, rawdump, uefivarstore, storsec

• Missing in eMMC (Present in UFS):

  • imagefv_a/b
  • qweslicstore_a/b

• Size Mismatches:

  • uefi: eMMC is 5MB, UFS is 8MB.
  • qupfw: eMMC is 64KB, UFS is 80KB.
  • xbl: eMMC is 3584KB, UFS is 3604KB.

• DDR Layout:

  • eMMC has a single ddr partition (1024KB).
  • UFS has ddr_a and ddr_b (1024KB each).

3. ID (GUID) Mismatches

• xbl_b: eMMC shares the same GUID as xbl_a (DEA0...), whereas UFS xbl_b has a distinct GUID (7A3D...).
• xbl_config_b: eMMC uses A4CD..., while UFS uses F462....