[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Faiz Abbas]

With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.

Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
---
 configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig    | 2 ++
 configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig | 2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig b/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig
index ef061501ef..07a7973ea2 100644
--- a/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig
+++ b/configs/dra7xx_evm_defconfig
@@ -36,8 +36,10 @@ CONFIG_OF_LIST="dra7-evm dra72-evm dra72-evm-revc dra71-evm dra76-evm"
 CONFIG_SPL_MULTI_DTB_FIT=y
 CONFIG_SPL_MULTI_DTB_FIT_UNCOMPRESS_SZ=0x9000
 CONFIG_OF_SPL_REMOVE_PROPS="clocks clock-names interrupt-parent"
+# CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_FAT is not set
 CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_MMC=y
 CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_RUNTIME_CONFIG=y
+# CONFIG_SPL_ENV_IS_IN_MMC is not set
 CONFIG_DM=y
 CONFIG_SPL_DM=y
 CONFIG_SPL_DM_DEVICE_REMOVE=y
diff --git a/configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig b/configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig
index 3cf7659496..8b2a83aad3 100644
--- a/configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig
+++ b/configs/dra7xx_hs_evm_defconfig
@@ -40,8 +40,10 @@ CONFIG_OF_LIST="dra7-evm dra72-evm dra72-evm-revc dra71-evm dra76-evm"
 CONFIG_SPL_MULTI_DTB_FIT=y
 CONFIG_SPL_MULTI_DTB_FIT_UNCOMPRESS_SZ=0x9000
 CONFIG_OF_SPL_REMOVE_PROPS="clocks clock-names interrupt-parent"
+# CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_FAT is not set
 CONFIG_ENV_IS_IN_MMC=y
 CONFIG_ENV_VARS_UBOOT_RUNTIME_CONFIG=y
+# CONFIG_SPL_ENV_IS_IN_MMC is not set
 CONFIG_DM=y
 CONFIG_SPL_DM=y
 CONFIG_SPL_DM_DEVICE_REMOVE=y
-- 
2.19.2

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Tom Rini]

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:

> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>

Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
location, why the switch back?  Thanks!

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190219/b80edc12/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Faiz Abbas]

Hi Tom,

On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> 
>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
> 
> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
> 

This commit added this:

commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100

    env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig

    Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
    multiple environments backend through Kconfig.

    Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
    Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
    Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
    Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>


Looking at the the cover letter for that series
(https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
environment to FAT partition.

Maybe I am not seeing the whole picture here, but this doesn't make
sense to me. Why should we dictate where every board with MMC storage
puts their environment? Shouldn't we give the freedom for the board
owner to decide that (and work around the ramifications of the
increasing size of U-boot)?

dra7xx has two MMC instances. One is a FAT partitioned SD card and the
other is a raw (or at most GPT partitioned) eMMC. We have been keeping
environment in eMMC to better support android boot requirements and
would like to keep it that way.

Thanks,
Faiz

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> > 
> >> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
> >> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
> > 
> > Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
> > location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
> > 
> 
> This commit added this:
> 
> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
> 
>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
> 
>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
> 
>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
> 
> 
> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
> environment to FAT partition.

Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20190221/1d82aa0f/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Faiz Abbas]

Tom,

On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>
>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
>>>
>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> This commit added this:
>>
>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>
>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>
>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>
>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>
>>
>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>> environment to FAT partition.
> 
> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
> 

Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.

Regards,
Faiz

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Lokesh Vutla]

On 22/02/19 5:21 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>> Hi Tom,
>>>
>>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>
>>> This commit added this:
>>>
>>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>>
>>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>>
>>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>
>>>
>>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>>> environment to FAT partition.
>>
>> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
>> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
>> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
>> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
>> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
>> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
>>
> 
> Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
> altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.

If EMMC is the already the first in the list for saving env, then we don't need
this change right?

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

> 
> Regards,
> Faiz
> 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Faiz Abbas]

Lokesh,

On 22/02/19 5:33 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/02/19 5:21 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This commit added this:
>>>>
>>>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>>>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>>>
>>>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>>>
>>>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>>>
>>>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>>>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>>>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>>>> environment to FAT partition.
>>>
>>> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
>>> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
>>> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
>>> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
>>> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
>>> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
>>>
>>
>> Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
>> altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.
> 
> If EMMC is the already the first in the list for saving env, then we don't need
> this change right?
> 

Its not the first in list. It always tries to look for FAT first and
then EMMC.

Thanks,
Faiz

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Lokesh Vutla]

On 22/02/19 5:46 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
> Lokesh,
> 
> On 22/02/19 5:33 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22/02/19 5:21 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>>>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This commit added this:
>>>>>
>>>>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>>>>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>>>>
>>>>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>>>>
>>>>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>>>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>>>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>>>>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>>>>> environment to FAT partition.
>>>>
>>>> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
>>>> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
>>>> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
>>>> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
>>>> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
>>>> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
>>> altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.
>>
>> If EMMC is the already the first in the list for saving env, then we don't need
>> this change right?
>>
> 
> Its not the first in list. It always tries to look for FAT first and
> then EMMC.

okay. We have android requirements to save env in EMMC. So I am okay with this
change. Also do not drop env from SPL. Falcon boot might require it.

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

> 
> Thanks,
> Faiz
> 

[U-Boot] [PATCH] configs: dra7xx_evm: Remove ENV_IS_IN_FAT and SPL_ENV_*

[Faiz Abbas]

Hi Lokesh,

On 22/02/19 6:01 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 22/02/19 5:46 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>> Lokesh,
>>
>> On 22/02/19 5:33 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 22/02/19 5:21 PM, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>> Tom,
>>>>
>>>> On 22/02/19 5:00 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 01:33:50PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 19/02/19 8:45 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:25:29PM +0530, Faiz Abbas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> With U-boot supporting environment in multiple places, enable only
>>>>>>>> ENV_IS_IN_EMMC in U-boot.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Faiz Abbas <faiz_abbas@ti.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since we had previously and intentionally enabled FAT over raw MMC
>>>>>>> location, why the switch back?  Thanks!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This commit added this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit fb69464eae1ec5aed2ee0e3a9e5533a31ad38bac
>>>>>> Author: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>>> Date:   Tue Jan 23 21:17:01 2018 +0100
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     env: Allow to build multiple environments in Kconfig
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Now that we have everything in place in the code, let's allow to build
>>>>>>     multiple environments backend through Kconfig.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma@denx.de>
>>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <sjg@chromium.org>
>>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the the cover letter for that series
>>>>>> (https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/842057/) , it seems to be an attempt
>>>>>> to combat the increasing size of U-boot by permanently moving the
>>>>>> environment to FAT partition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, not exactly.  It's about allowing more than one location to be
>>>>> enabled.  For example, raw eMMC when that makes sense or FAT file when
>>>>> that makes sense.  If Lokesh ack's the change (or passes MAINTAINER over
>>>>> to someone else who acks), OK, we'll do this.  But there's intentional
>>>>> reasons we've put it in a file in FAT before, even on this platform.
>>>>> But maybe use cases have changed, and that's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok. The cover letter said they want to get rid of raw bootmode
>>>> altogether and that is why I was concerned. Thanks for clearing it up.
>>>
>>> If EMMC is the already the first in the list for saving env, then we don't need
>>> this change right?
>>>
>>
>> Its not the first in list. It always tries to look for FAT first and
>> then EMMC.
> 
> okay. We have android requirements to save env in EMMC. So I am okay with this
> change. Also do not drop env from SPL. Falcon boot might require it.
> 

Ok. Removing in v2.

Thanks,
Faiz