As noted here [1], there are potentially future conflicts if we try to
use MTD's "partitions" subnode to describe anything besides just the
fixed-in-the-device-tree partitions currently described in this
document. Particularly, there was a proposal to use this node for the
AFS parser too.

It can pose a (small) problem to try to differentiate the following
nodes:

	// using binding as currently specified
	partitions {
		#address-cells = <x>;
		#size-cells = <y>;
		partition@0 {
			...;
		};
	};

and

	// proposed future binding
	partitions {
		compatible = "arm,arm-flash-structure";
	};

It's especially difficult if other uses of this node start having
subnodes.

So, since the "partitions" node is new in v4.4, let's fixup the binding
before release so that it requires a compatible property, so it's much
clearer to distinguish. e.g.:

	// proposed
	partitions {
		compatible = "fixed-partitions";
		#address-cells = <x>;
		#size-cells = <y>;
		partition@0 {
			...;
		};
	};

[1] Subject: "mtd: create a partition type device tree binding"
    http://lkml.kernel.org/g/20151113220039.GA74382@google.com
    http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-November/063355.html
    http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-November/063364.html

Cc: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: NBrian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
Acked-by: NRob Herring <robh@kernel.org>