[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] rockchip: chromebook_minnie: Enable sound

[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] rockchip: chromebook_minnie: Enable sound

[Simon Glass]

Enable sound for this board, which has the same codec as jerry.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---

 arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts | 12 ++++++++++++
 configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig   |  5 +++++
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts b/arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts
index 0a2915fba09..646f6ae7424 100644
--- a/arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts
@@ -85,6 +85,18 @@
 		regulator-boot-on;
 		vin-supply = <&vcc18_wl>;
 	};
+
+	sound {
+		compatible = "rockchip,audio-max98090-jerry";
+
+		cpu {
+			sound-dai = <&i2s 0>;
+		};
+
+		codec {
+			sound-dai = <&max98090 0>;
+		};
+	};
 };
 
 &backlight {
diff --git a/configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig b/configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig
index b0428740736..93e40c02101 100644
--- a/configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig
+++ b/configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig
@@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ CONFIG_CMD_USB=y
 # CONFIG_CMD_SETEXPR is not set
 CONFIG_CMD_CACHE=y
 CONFIG_CMD_TIME=y
+CONFIG_CMD_SOUND=y
 CONFIG_CMD_PMIC=y
 CONFIG_CMD_REGULATOR=y
 # CONFIG_SPL_DOS_PARTITION is not set
@@ -75,6 +76,10 @@ CONFIG_RAM=y
 CONFIG_SPL_RAM=y
 CONFIG_DEBUG_UART_SHIFT=2
 CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SERIAL=y
+CONFIG_SOUND=y
+CONFIG_I2S=y
+CONFIG_I2S_ROCKCHIP=y
+CONFIG_SOUND_MAX98090=y
 CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_SPI=y
 CONFIG_SYSRESET=y
 CONFIG_USB=y
-- 
2.20.1.415.g653613c723-goog

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Simon Glass]

This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
have this feature.

Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
---

 arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
index f32b3c4ce56..d7997d71e30 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
@@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ int setup_boot_mode(void)
 	void *reg = (void *)CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG;
 	int boot_mode = readl(reg);
 
-	rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
+	/*
+	 * This should be handled using a driver-tree property and a suitable
+	 * driver which can read the appropriate settings. As it is, this
+	 * breaks chromebook_minnie.\
+	 *
+	 * rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
+	 */
 
 	boot_mode = readl(reg);
 	debug("%s: boot mode 0x%08x\n", __func__, boot_mode);
-- 
2.20.1.415.g653613c723-goog

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 29.12.2018, at 14:16, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> have this feature.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>

Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

Simon,

As an alternative, you can turn this off by setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 in
your defconfig.
We’ve done the same for our RK3399-Q7 module:
	configs/puma-rk3399_defconfig:CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG=0x0

If this works for you, we can avoid removing this feature this late in the cycle and
defeature/remove it in the next release, unless moved into a DTS-controlled driver.

Thanks,
Philipp.

> On 29.12.2018, at 18:57, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 29.12.2018, at 14:16, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
>> 
>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
>> have this feature.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Simon Glass]

Hi Philipp,

On Sat, 29 Dec 2018 at 11:01, Philipp Tomsich
<philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>
> Simon,
>
> As an alternative, you can turn this off by setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 in
> your defconfig.
> We’ve done the same for our RK3399-Q7 module:
>         configs/puma-rk3399_defconfig:CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG=0x0
>
> If this works for you, we can avoid removing this feature this late in the cycle and
> defeature/remove it in the next release, unless moved into a DTS-controlled driver.

That's OK with me. Since the display was broken in the last release
too, I'll just wait for the fix.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now[Please note, mail behalf by 3vnmnxammciszqnjoyvtpbt.vynrlcly.fhunyvjr-jopwz.jvt@chromium-sendgmr.bounces.google.com]

[Kever Yang]

Hi Simon,


On 12/29/2018 09:16 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> minnie. 

I don't understand why need 5-second, the logic is to check the adc key
press to decide the mode, maybe because the different usage of the adc
in minnie?

Most of boards(which do not have ec like chromebook) need this check to
get into download mode.
I would prefer chrombook to implement a function to replace the week
rockchip_dnl_mode_check();

Thanks,
- Kever
> This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> have this feature.
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
>
>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> index f32b3c4ce56..d7997d71e30 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> @@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ int setup_boot_mode(void)
>  	void *reg = (void *)CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG;
>  	int boot_mode = readl(reg);
>  
> -	rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
> +	/*
> +	 * This should be handled using a driver-tree property and a suitable
> +	 * driver which can read the appropriate settings. As it is, this
> +	 * breaks chromebook_minnie.\
> +	 *
> +	 * rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
> +	 */
>  
>  	boot_mode = readl(reg);
>  	debug("%s: boot mode 0x%08x\n", __func__, boot_mode);

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now[Please note, mail behalf by 3vnmnxammciszqnjoyvtpbt.vynrlcly.fhunyvjr-jopwz.jvt@chromium-sendgmr.bounces.google.com]

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 00:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon,
>
>
> On 12/29/2018 09:16 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> > This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> > minnie.
>
> I don't understand why need 5-second, the logic is to check the adc key
> press to decide the mode, maybe because the different usage of the adc
> in minnie?
>
> Most of boards(which do not have ec like chromebook) need this check to
> get into download mode.
> I would prefer chrombook to implement a function to replace the week
> rockchip_dnl_mode_check();

But where is it specified in the DT that it uses the ADC for this
feature? It really should have a driver...

Regards,
Simon


>
> Thanks,
> - Kever
> > This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> > a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> > have this feature.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > ---
> >
> >  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> > index f32b3c4ce56..d7997d71e30 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c
> > @@ -61,7 +61,13 @@ int setup_boot_mode(void)
> >       void *reg = (void *)CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG;
> >       int boot_mode = readl(reg);
> >
> > -     rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
> > +     /*
> > +      * This should be handled using a driver-tree property and a suitable
> > +      * driver which can read the appropriate settings. As it is, this
> > +      * breaks chromebook_minnie.\
> > +      *
> > +      * rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
> > +      */
> >
> >       boot_mode = readl(reg);
> >       debug("%s: boot mode 0x%08x\n", __func__, boot_mode);
>
>
>

[U-Boot] [PATCH 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now[Please note, mail behalf by 3vnmnxammciszqnjoyvtpbt.vynrlcly.fhunyvjr-jopwz.jvt@chromium-sendgmr.bounces.google.com]

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 03.01.2019, at 22:29, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019 at 00:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Simon,
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/29/2018 09:16 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>> minnie.
>> 
>> I don't understand why need 5-second, the logic is to check the adc key
>> press to decide the mode, maybe because the different usage of the adc
>> in minnie?
>> 
>> Most of boards(which do not have ec like chromebook) need this check to
>> get into download mode.
>> I would prefer chrombook to implement a function to replace the week
>> rockchip_dnl_mode_check();
> 
> But where is it specified in the DT that it uses the ADC for this
> feature? It really should have a driver…

3 things:
	a.	It really should have a driver.
	b.	One does not have to replace rockchip_dnl_mode_check(), as there
		already is logic to remove it if CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG
		is set to 0 in the config.
	c.	We really need to get away from configuring magic addresses via Kconfig. 

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> have this feature.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 

Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[andy.yan at rock-chips.com]

Hi：

> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> have this feature.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
 
》Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!


According to the previous discussing， shouldn‘t this be fixed by  by setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 ？
All rockchip products need this function，we really don't want it be turned off.
 

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

Andy,

> On 01.02.2019, at 02:32, andy.yan at rock-chips.com wrote:
> 
> Hi：
> 
> > This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> > minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> > a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> > have this feature.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> > ---
> >
> >  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
>  
> 》Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
> 
> 
> According to the previous discussing， shouldn‘t this be fixed by  by setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 ？
> All rockchip products need this function，we really don't want it be turned off.

The actual decision was that this needed to be converted to the driver-model.
Setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 was a workaround that we used only
for 2019.1, so I could delay applying Simon’s patch until this cycle.

Please convert this into a DM driver, so we can add the driver for 2019.4.

Thanks,
Philipp.

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 01.02.2019, at 09:38, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> Andy,
> 
>> On 01.02.2019, at 02:32, andy.yan at rock-chips.com wrote:
>> 
>> Hi：
>> 
>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
>>> have this feature.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> 
>> 
>> 》Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>> 
>> 
>> According to the previous discussing， shouldn‘t this be fixed by  by setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 ？
>> All rockchip products need this function，we really don't want it be turned off.
> 
> The actual decision was that this needed to be converted to the driver-model.
> Setting CONFIG_BOOT_MODE_REG=0 was a workaround that we used only
> for 2019.1, so I could delay applying Simon’s patch until this cycle.

Just for the record, this is a verbatim quote from the original review:
> If this works for you, we can avoid removing this feature this late in the cycle and
> defeature/remove it in the next release, unless moved into a DTS-controlled driver.

> 
> Please convert this into a DM driver, so we can add the driver for 2019.4.
> 
> Thanks,
> Philipp.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Kever Yang]

Hi Philipp,

    This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!

    I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
many boards.

    My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
without acceptable reason;
    This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!

Thanks,
- Kever
On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
>> have this feature.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
>> ---
>>
>>  arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Philipp,
> 
>     This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
> 
>     I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
> many boards.
> 
>     My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
> without acceptable reason;

What other patch?
I don’t remember seeing that one...

>     This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
> 
> Thanks,
> - Kever
> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
>>> have this feature.
>>> 
>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>> 
>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
> 
> 
> 

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Philipp Tomsich]

Kever,

Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also independent of
if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t find it in my local
mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release (unless converted to
DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be addressed:
1.	This really should be a driver under DTS control.
2.	We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via Kconfig

Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the last 18 months
and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
with the architectural direction of U-Boot.

I don’t have my own house completely in order (I’ve been talking for a year now about
finally wrapping the RGMII/GMII selection into an ioctl-call to a driver) yet, but that doesn’t
mean that we we should delay this clean-up more than absolutely necessary.

Thanks,
Philipp.

> On 01.02.2019, at 10:34, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Philipp,
>> 
>>    This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
>> 
>>    I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
>> many boards.
>> 
>>    My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
>> without acceptable reason;
> 
> What other patch?
> I don’t remember seeing that one...
> 
>>    This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
>> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> - Kever
>> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
>>>> have this feature.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>> 
>>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot <https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Simon Glass]

Hi Kever,

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 03:26, Philipp Tomsich
<philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
>
> Kever,
>
> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also independent of
> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t find it in my local
> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release (unless converted to
> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be addressed:
> 1.      This really should be a driver under DTS control.
> 2.      We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via Kconfig

Let me know if I can help with this. Philipp I am find with any
short-term solution that comes up, but agree that it should be tidied
up.

- Simon

>
> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the last 18 months
> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
>
> I don’t have my own house completely in order (I’ve been talking for a year now about
> finally wrapping the RGMII/GMII selection into an ioctl-call to a driver) yet, but that doesn’t
> mean that we we should delay this clean-up more than absolutely necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Philipp.
>
> > On 01.02.2019, at 10:34, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Philipp,
> >>
> >>    This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
> >>
> >>    I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
> >> many boards.
> >>
> >>    My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
> >> without acceptable reason;
> >
> > What other patch?
> > I don’t remember seeing that one...
> >
> >>    This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
> >> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> - Kever
> >> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> >>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> >>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which do not
> >>>> have this feature.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
> >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> U-Boot mailing list
> >>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> >>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > U-Boot mailing list
> > U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
> > https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot <https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot>
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Andy Yan]

Hi Philipp:

     Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring 
Festival.

On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> Kever,
>
> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also 
> independent of
> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t 
> find it in my local
> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release 
> (unless converted to
> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be 
> addressed:

I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we  
apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make 
sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?


> 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
> 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via 
> Kconfig
>
> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the 
> last 18 months
> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a 
> driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
>
For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary 
here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out 
from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.

On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to 
enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them 
reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share

dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible 
,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either. 
This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.


> I don’t have my own house completely in order (I’ve been talking for a 
> year now about
> finally wrapping the RGMII/GMII selection into an ioctl-call to a 
> driver) yet, but that doesn’t
> mean that we we should delay this clean-up more than absolutely necessary.
>
> Thanks,
> Philipp.
>
>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:34, Philipp Tomsich 
>> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com 
>> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com 
>>> <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>
>>>    This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
>>>
>>>    I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
>>> many boards.
>>>
>>>    My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
>>> without acceptable reason;
>>
>> What other patch?
>> I don’t remember seeing that one...
>>
>>>    This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
>>> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> - Kever
>>> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>>>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which 
>>>>> do not
>>>>> have this feature.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org 
>>>>> <mailto:sjg@chromium.org>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich 
>>>>> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com 
>>>>> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
>>>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】

[Simon Glass]

HI Andy,

On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Philipp:
>
>      Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring
> Festival.
>
> On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > Kever,
> >
> > Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also
> > independent of
> > if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t
> > find it in my local
> > mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release
> > (unless converted to
> > DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be
> > addressed:
>
> I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we
> apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make
> sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?
>
>
> > 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
> > 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via
> > Kconfig
> >
> > Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the
> > last 18 months
> > and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
> > E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a
> > driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
> > with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
> >
> For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary
> here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out
> from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.

Yes this is happening very early, but I wonder why this is necessary?
Can it be moved to later?

The call to check_back_to_brom_dnl_flag() happens much later so there
should be no problem to convert that.

>
> On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to
> enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them
> reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share
>
> dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible
> ,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either.
> This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.
>

OK, but given that it is called later, it seems to me that it could
use a driver.

Regards,
Simon


>
> > I don’t have my own house completely in order (I’ve been talking for a
> > year now about
> > finally wrapping the RGMII/GMII selection into an ioctl-call to a
> > driver) yet, but that doesn’t
> > mean that we we should delay this clean-up more than absolutely necessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Philipp.
> >
> >> On 01.02.2019, at 10:34, Philipp Tomsich
> >> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
> >> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com
> >>> <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Philipp,
> >>>
> >>>    This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
> >>>
> >>>    I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
> >>> many boards.
> >>>
> >>>    My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
> >>> without acceptable reason;
> >>
> >> What other patch?
> >> I don’t remember seeing that one...
> >>
> >>>    This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
> >>> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> - Kever
> >>> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >>>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
> >>>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
> >>>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which
> >>>>> do not
> >>>>> have this feature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org
> >>>>> <mailto:sjg@chromium.org>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich
> >>>>> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
> >>>>> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
> >>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> U-Boot mailing list
> >>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
> >>>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> U-Boot mailing list
> >> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
> >> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
> >
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】【请注意，邮件由sjg@google.com代发】

[Andy Yan]

Hi Simon:

On 2019/2/12 下午11:31, Simon Glass wrote:
> HI Andy,
>
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Hi Philipp:
>>
>>       Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring
>> Festival.
>>
>> On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>> Kever,
>>>
>>> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also
>>> independent of
>>> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t
>>> find it in my local
>>> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release
>>> (unless converted to
>>> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be
>>> addressed:
>> I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we
>> apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make
>> sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?
>>
>>
>>> 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
>>> 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via
>>> Kconfig
>>>
>>> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the
>>> last 18 months
>>> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
>>> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a
>>> driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
>>> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
>>>
>> For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary
>> here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out
>> from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.
> Yes this is happening very early, but I wonder why this is necessary?
> Can it be moved to later?
>
> The call to check_back_to_brom_dnl_flag() happens much later so there
> should be no problem to convert that.
>
>> On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to
>> enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them
>> reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share
>>
>> dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible
>> ,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either.
>> This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.
>>
> OK, but given that it is called later, it seems to me that it could
> use a driver.



We can't let it called later. See the discuss here : 
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/812228/


> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>>> I don’t have my own house completely in order (I’ve been talking for a
>>> year now about
>>> finally wrapping the RGMII/GMII selection into an ioctl-call to a
>>> driver) yet, but that doesn’t
>>> mean that we we should delay this clean-up more than absolutely necessary.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Philipp.
>>>
>>>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:34, Philipp Tomsich
>>>> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
>>>> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 01.02.2019, at 10:32, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com
>>>>> <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Philipp,
>>>>>
>>>>>     This is not right,  this patch should not merged like this!!!
>>>>>
>>>>>     I have give my review comment in previous mail, and this will break
>>>>> many boards.
>>>>>
>>>>>     My another patch do not break anything, but you insist NAK it
>>>>> without acceptable reason;
>>>> What other patch?
>>>> I don’t remember seeing that one...
>>>>
>>>>>     This patch definitely break other board and I have comment it, but
>>>>> you just ignore other people's review and merge it, good job!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> - Kever
>>>>> On 02/01/2019 05:12 AM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>>>>>> This function causes a 5-second delay and stops the display working on
>>>>>>> minnie. This code should be in a driver and should only be enabled by
>>>>>>> a device-tree property, so that it does not affect devices which
>>>>>>> do not
>>>>>>> have this feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:sjg@chromium.org>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich
>>>>>>> <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/boot_mode.c | 8 +++++++-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>>>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
>>>>>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> U-Boot mailing list
>>>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de <mailto:U-Boot@lists.denx.de>
>>>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
>
>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】【请注意，邮件由sjg@google.com代发】

[Simon Glass]

Hi Andy,

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 03:52, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Simon:
>
> On 2019/2/12 下午11:31, Simon Glass wrote:
> > HI Andy,
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Philipp:
> >>
> >>       Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring
> >> Festival.
> >>
> >> On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> >>> Kever,
> >>>
> >>> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also
> >>> independent of
> >>> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t
> >>> find it in my local
> >>> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release
> >>> (unless converted to
> >>> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be
> >>> addressed:
> >> I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we
> >> apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make
> >> sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?
> >>
> >>
> >>> 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
> >>> 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via
> >>> Kconfig
> >>>
> >>> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the
> >>> last 18 months
> >>> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
> >>> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a
> >>> driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
> >>> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
> >>>
> >> For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary
> >> here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out
> >> from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.
> > Yes this is happening very early, but I wonder why this is necessary?
> > Can it be moved to later?
> >
> > The call to check_back_to_brom_dnl_flag() happens much later so there
> > should be no problem to convert that.
> >
> >> On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to
> >> enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them
> >> reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share
> >>
> >> dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible
> >> ,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either.
> >> This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.
> >>
> > OK, but given that it is called later, it seems to me that it could
> > use a driver.
>
>
>
> We can't let it called later. See the discuss here :
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/812228/

Yes I read that, and took a look myself, and certainly it does not
look very easy and I take your point about potential bugs being
introduced.

It seems like you have tried quite hard, so I'm not going to object if
you can't find a way. My main objection was that it broke other
boards.

Is there any way the check could be delayed enough to actually be able
to read the device tree? It could call spl_early_init() quite early
and then do that.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】【请注意，邮件由sjg@google.com代发】

[Philipp Tomsich]

> On 11.03.2019, at 03:30, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andy,
> 
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 03:52, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Simon:
>> 
>> On 2019/2/12 下午11:31, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> HI Andy,
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Philipp:
>>>> 
>>>>      Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring
>>>> Festival.
>>>> 
>>>> On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>>>> Kever,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also
>>>>> independent of
>>>>> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t
>>>>> find it in my local
>>>>> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release
>>>>> (unless converted to
>>>>> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be
>>>>> addressed:
>>>> I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we
>>>> apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make
>>>> sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
>>>>> 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via
>>>>> Kconfig
>>>>> 
>>>>> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the
>>>>> last 18 months
>>>>> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
>>>>> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a
>>>>> driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
>>>>> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
>>>>> 
>>>> For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary
>>>> here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out
>>>> from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.
>>> Yes this is happening very early, but I wonder why this is necessary?
>>> Can it be moved to later?
>>> 
>>> The call to check_back_to_brom_dnl_flag() happens much later so there
>>> should be no problem to convert that.
>>> 
>>>> On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to
>>>> enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them
>>>> reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share
>>>> 
>>>> dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible
>>>> ,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either.
>>>> This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.
>>>> 
>>> OK, but given that it is called later, it seems to me that it could
>>> use a driver.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> We can't let it called later. See the discuss here :
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/812228/
> 
> Yes I read that, and took a look myself, and certainly it does not
> look very easy and I take your point about potential bugs being
> introduced.
> 
> It seems like you have tried quite hard, so I'm not going to object if
> you can't find a way. My main objection was that it broke other
> boards.
> 
> Is there any way the check could be delayed enough to actually be able
> to read the device tree? It could call spl_early_init() quite early
> and then do that.

Note that the minimum improvement that I’d expect to get this fully
enabled again would be a clean-up of the Kconfig options, so it is
easy and (from the documentation) predictable for boards to turn
this off.

I still want this to be turned back on in the current cycle.

Thanks,
Philipp.

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Kever Yang]

On 03/11/2019 09:04 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> Note that the minimum improvement that I’d expect to get this fully
> enabled again would be a clean-up of the Kconfig options, so it is
> easy and (from the documentation) predictable for boards to turn
> this off.
>
> I still want this to be turned back on in the current cycle.

Great maintainer!!!!

You objection for other patch is that it break other boards(which is non
exist actually),
and you merge this patch(break more than 10 boards very clearly) with
objection comment.
And then you require for all the Kconfig options update before the
feature back.

ＷoW!!!

Thanks,
- Kever

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Simon Glass]

Hi,

On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 09:26, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 03/11/2019 09:04 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
> > Note that the minimum improvement that I’d expect to get this fully
> > enabled again would be a clean-up of the Kconfig options, so it is
> > easy and (from the documentation) predictable for boards to turn
> > this off.
> >
> > I still want this to be turned back on in the current cycle.
>
> Great maintainer!!!!
>
> You objection for other patch is that it break other boards(which is non
> exist actually),
> and you merge this patch(break more than 10 boards very clearly) with
> objection comment.
> And then you require for all the Kconfig options update before the
> feature back.
>
> ＷoW!!!

How do we resolve this? I have not had time to dig into this myself,
and there seem to be big problems with doing this 'properly'.

Should we bring back the Kconfig for this release? I may be able to
look at it for the next release, although time is not my friend at
present.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now

[Philipp Tomsich]

Simon,

> On 18.03.2019, at 12:58, Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2019 at 09:26, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com <mailto:kever.yang@rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 03/11/2019 09:04 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>> Note that the minimum improvement that I’d expect to get this fully
>>> enabled again would be a clean-up of the Kconfig options, so it is
>>> easy and (from the documentation) predictable for boards to turn
>>> this off.
>>> 
>>> I still want this to be turned back on in the current cycle.
>> 
>> Great maintainer!!!!
>> 
>> You objection for other patch is that it break other boards(which is non
>> exist actually),
>> and you merge this patch(break more than 10 boards very clearly) with
>> objection comment.
>> And then you require for all the Kconfig options update before the
>> feature back.
>> 
>> ＷoW!!!
> 
> How do we resolve this? I have not had time to dig into this myself,
> and there seem to be big problems with doing this 'properly'.
> 
> Should we bring back the Kconfig for this release? I may be able to
> look at it for the next release, although time is not my friend at
> present.

I may have the time to update the Kconfig this week.
If not, I’ll revert the deprecation-patch for this release.

Philipp.

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 2/2] rockchip: Drop call to rockchip_dnl_mode_check() for now【请注意，邮件由u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de代发】【请注意，邮件由sjg@google.com代发】

[Andy Yan]

Hi Simon:

On 2019/3/11 上午10:30, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 at 03:52, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon:
>>
>> On 2019/2/12 下午11:31, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> HI Andy,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 04:05, Andy Yan <andy.yan@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Philipp:
>>>>
>>>>        Sorry for the late reply, we just come back from the Chinese Spring
>>>> Festival.
>>>>
>>>> On 2019/2/1 下午6:26, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>>>> Kever,
>>>>>
>>>>> Independent of whether we revert this for the current cycle (and also
>>>>> independent of
>>>>> if I ever find the other patch you had been referring to — I couldn’t
>>>>> find it in my local
>>>>> mailing list archive) and then deprecate it for the next release
>>>>> (unless converted to
>>>>> DM), we still have a number of architectural issues that need to be
>>>>> addressed:
>>>> I still doubt  is this a right  work-flow for patch apply. Before we
>>>> apply  a patch  which will break many other boards , should we  make
>>>> sure there is a solution patch applied for these boars first?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 1.This really should be a driver under DTS control.
>>>>> 2.We need to not get away from configuring SOM-specific addresses via
>>>>> Kconfig
>>>>>
>>>>> Both these issues are technical debt that we’ve accumulated over the
>>>>> last 18 months
>>>>> and need to address for the sake of future maintainability.
>>>>> E.g. ‘setting an address to 0x0 via Kconfig to disable a
>>>>> driver/feature’ really isn’t in line
>>>>> with the architectural direction of U-Boot.
>>>>>
>>>> For technical side, I think CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG is necessary
>>>> here, we will read this register from save_boot_params when we get out
>>>> from bootrom,  the dtb is not available at this point.
>>> Yes this is happening very early, but I wonder why this is necessary?
>>> Can it be moved to later?
>>>
>>> The call to check_back_to_brom_dnl_flag() happens much later so there
>>> should be no problem to convert that.
>>>
>>>> On the other hand, almost rockchip based products use a recovery key to
>>>> enter download(upgrade)mode, this is a muti-funtion key, most of them
>>>> reuse with vol+- key,  we would like the u-boot share
>>>>
>>>> dtb with linux kernel. To keep the linux kernel dts as clean as possible
>>>> ,we don't want to add another dts property to describe this key either.
>>>> This is why I implement function rockchip_dnl_key_pressed as __weak.
>>>>
>>> OK, but given that it is called later, it seems to me that it could
>>> use a driver.
>>
>>
>> We can't let it called later. See the discuss here :
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/812228/
> Yes I read that, and took a look myself, and certainly it does not
> look very easy and I take your point about potential bugs being
> introduced.
>
> It seems like you have tried quite hard, so I'm not going to object if
> you can't find a way. My main objection was that it broke other
> boards.


I took the code many times,  what this code done is : call 
adc_channel_single_shot to check if a download key is pressed, so it is 
very strange it broke the display on minnie. Would you please show the 
boot log when the display broke.

>
> Is there any way the check could be delayed enough to actually be able
> to read the device tree? It could call spl_early_init() quite early
> and then do that.

Actually,  the interrupt overwrite happens in start.s,  so this don't do 
help.

>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 1/2] rockchip: chromebook_minnie: Enable sound

[Philipp Tomsich]

> Enable sound for this board, which has the same codec as jerry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts | 12 ++++++++++++
>  configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig   |  5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 

Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>

[U-Boot] [U-Boot, 1/2] rockchip: chromebook_minnie: Enable sound

[Philipp Tomsich]

> Enable sound for this board, which has the same codec as jerry.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
> Reviewed-by: Philipp Tomsich <philipp.tomsich@theobroma-systems.com>
> ---
> 
>  arch/arm/dts/rk3288-veyron-minnie.dts | 12 ++++++++++++
>  configs/chromebook_minnie_defconfig   |  5 +++++
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 

Applied to u-boot-rockchip, thanks!