From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Walter Lozano Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2020 01:24:33 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] mx6cuboxi: customize board_boot_order to access eMMC In-Reply-To: <818fcbd6-6528-0d1e-4fb5-f251d9799cc6@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> <20200316181120.x6bs75otwj7wkjlq@sapphire.tkos.co.il> <818fcbd6-6528-0d1e-4fb5-f251d9799cc6@collabora.com> Message-ID: <7206b9c4-a9d2-c86e-d984-71f7840b2b71@collabora.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Stefano, I noticed that this series has state = Changes Requested, but not sure what are the changes need. Could you please clarify? There is a silly hunk but Baruch suggested that this no requires a v3. However if you prefer a v3, I can prepare it Please confirm. On 16/3/20 15:56, Walter Lozano wrote: > Hi Baruch, > > On 16/3/20 15:11, Baruch Siach wrote: >> 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. > > Thanks for clarifying. > >> >>>>>> 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. > > Thanks again for clarifying, you have been very helpful. Regards, Walter