From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Baruch Siach Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 20:11:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] mx6cuboxi: customize board_boot_order to access eMMC In-Reply-To: <8dea6c92-56fb-7804-1e47-231395d05bd1@collabora.com> References: <20200311143017.28346-1-walter.lozano@collabora.com> <20200311143017.28346-3-walter.lozano@collabora.com> <87d09i413t.fsf@tarshish> <20200316162814.udkwp657cepadfb4@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <20200316172552.45vfwljovh5gvy6j@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <8dea6c92-56fb-7804-1e47-231395d05bd1@collabora.com> Message-ID: <20200316181120.x6bs75otwj7wkjlq@sapphire.tkos.co.il> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Walter, On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:53:58PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote: > On 16/3/20 14:25, Baruch Siach wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 02:05:57PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote: > > > On 16/3/20 13:28, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:52:13PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote: > > > > > Thanks for sharing. > > > > > > > > > > On 12/3/20 02:02, Baruch Siach wrote: > > > > > > Hi Walter, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 11 2020, Walter Lozano wrote: > > > > > > > In SPL legacy code only one MMC device is created, based on BOOT_CFG > > > > > > > register, which can be either SD or eMMC. In this context > > > > > > > board_boot_order return always MMC1 when configure to boot from > > > > > > > SD/eMMC. After switching to DM both SD and eMMC devices are created > > > > > > > based on the information available on DT, but as board_boot_order > > > > > > > only returns MMC1 is not possible to boot from eMMC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch customizes board_boot_order taking into account BOOT_CFG > > > > > > > register to point to correct MMC1 / MMC2 device. Additionally, handle > > > > > > > IO mux for the desired boot device. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Walter Lozano > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c b/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c > > > > > > > index 6a96f9ecdb..9bf3645f72 100644 > > > > > > > --- a/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c > > > > > > > +++ b/board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c > > > > > > > @@ -435,6 +435,7 @@ int board_early_init_f(void) > > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_CMD_SATA > > > > > > > setup_sata(); > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > + > > > > > > This hunk should not be part of this commit. > > > > > Thanks for pointing to this silly hunk. I will prepare a V3. > > > > > > > > > > > Looks good to me, otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't test at the moment. Have you tested boot from both SD card and eMMC? > > > > > Most of the work was done booting from SD. In order to test booting from > > > > > eMMC, as I have some specific eFUSE configs, I tweaked board_boot_order to > > > > > force booting from eMMC. > > > > But that does not cover SPL boot from eMMC, right? > > > Basically I think this approach should cover the necessary steps. To be more > > > clear about my tweak > > > > > > 1- BootROM loads SPL from SD > > > > > > 2- SPL is tweaked to load U-Boot from eMMC, and in this way test its support > > > on SPL > > This is not exactly the same as SPL boot from eMMC. For example, your scenario > > would work even without 'u-boot,dm-pre-reloc' property in the eMMC device > > node. > > I agree, it is not exactly the same and I really appreciate the time you > spent testing it. However I still don't understand your comments regarding > 'u-boot,dm-pre-reloc', as without this property there wouldn't be a usdhc3 > node in the DTB for SPL. Could you please clarify? You are right. Bad example. > > > > Anyway I tested your patches here on real hardware with unfused SOM and > > > > SD/eMMC boot select jumpers. > > > Thank you much for taking the time to test these patches in you board. I > > > really appreciate your help > > > > > > > Tested-by: Baruch Siach > > > Thanks. I'll add the tag to the v3. > > I think this series ready as is. No need to post v3 just for the test tag. > > Patchwork collects patch tags automatically. See under the 'A/F/R/T' column > > here: > > > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=163738 > > I see, thanks for clarifying the issue related to "Tested-by" tag. Sorry for > asking but, is it not necessary to send a v3 to avoid the "silly hunk" you > pointed me? I forgot about that. Maybe Stefano can make this trivial change when applying. I would not respin the series just for that. baruch -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.2.679.5364, http://www.tkos.co.il -