From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Walter Lozano Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 15:56:34 -0300 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/4] mx6cuboxi: customize board_boot_order to access eMMC In-Reply-To: <20200316181120.x6bs75otwj7wkjlq@sapphire.tkos.co.il> 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> Message-ID: <818fcbd6-6528-0d1e-4fb5-f251d9799cc6@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 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 > > baruch >