| Message ID | 20200311143017.28346-3-walter.lozano@collabora.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | mx6cuboxi: enable support for OF_CONTROL and DM in SPL | expand |
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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> > --- > 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. Looks good to me, otherwise. I can't test at the moment. Have you tested boot from both SD card and eMMC? In the future, please keep i.MX maintainers (Stefano, Fabio) in Cc. Thanks, baruch > return 0; > } > > @@ -624,6 +625,54 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) > return strcmp(name, tmp_name); > } > > +void board_boot_order(u32 *spl_boot_list) > +{ > + struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; > + unsigned int reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; > + u32 boot_mode = imx6_src_get_boot_mode() & IMX6_BMODE_MASK; > + unsigned int bmode = readl(&src_base->sbmr2); > + > + /* If bmode is serial or USB phy is active, return serial */ > + if (((bmode >> 24) & 0x03) == 0x01 || is_usbotg_phy_active()) { > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > + return; > + } > + > + switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { > + case IMX6_BMODE_SD: > + case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: > + case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: > + case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: > + /* > + * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: > + * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current > + * mmc port > + * 0x1 SD2 > + * 0x2 SD3 > + */ > + > + reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ > + switch (reg) { > + case 1: > + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; > + break; > + case 2: > + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; > + break; > + } > + break; > + default: > + /* By default use USB downloader */ > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > + break; > + } > + > + /* As a last resort, use serial downloader */ > + spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > +} > + > #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h> > static const struct mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs mx6q_ddr_ioregs = {
Hi Baruch, 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> >> --- >> 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. Regarding booting from SD/eMMC, I also wonder if having a list of boot devices would be useful, like switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { case IMX6_BMODE_SD: case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); /* * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current * mmc port * 0x1 SD2 * 0x2 SD3 */ reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ switch (reg) { case 1: spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; break; case 2: spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; break; } break; What do you think? > In the future, please keep i.MX maintainers (Stefano, Fabio) in Cc. Thanks for the advice. You are totally right. Regards, Walter > Thanks, > baruch > >> return 0; >> } >> >> @@ -624,6 +625,54 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) >> return strcmp(name, tmp_name); >> } >> >> +void board_boot_order(u32 *spl_boot_list) >> +{ >> + struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; >> + unsigned int reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; >> + u32 boot_mode = imx6_src_get_boot_mode() & IMX6_BMODE_MASK; >> + unsigned int bmode = readl(&src_base->sbmr2); >> + >> + /* If bmode is serial or USB phy is active, return serial */ >> + if (((bmode >> 24) & 0x03) == 0x01 || is_usbotg_phy_active()) { >> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >> + return; >> + } >> + >> + switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { >> + case IMX6_BMODE_SD: >> + case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: >> + case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: >> + case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: >> + /* >> + * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: >> + * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current >> + * mmc port >> + * 0x1 SD2 >> + * 0x2 SD3 >> + */ >> + >> + reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ >> + switch (reg) { >> + case 1: >> + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); >> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; >> + break; >> + case 2: >> + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); >> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; >> + break; >> + } >> + break; >> + default: >> + /* By default use USB downloader */ >> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >> + break; >> + } >> + >> + /* As a last resort, use serial downloader */ >> + spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >> +} >> + >> #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD >> #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h> >> static const struct mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs mx6q_ddr_ioregs = { >
Hi Walter, On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:52:13PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote: > Hi Baruch, > > 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> > > > --- > > > 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? Anyway I tested your patches here on real hardware with unfused SOM and SD/eMMC boot select jumpers. Tested-by: Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos.co.il> > Regarding booting from SD/eMMC, I also wonder if having a list of boot > devices would be useful, like > > switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { > case IMX6_BMODE_SD: > case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: > case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: > case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: > SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); > SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); > > /* > * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: > * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current > * mmc port > * 0x1 SD2 > * 0x2 SD3 > */ > > reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ > switch (reg) { > case 1: > spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; > spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; > break; > case 2: > spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; > spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; > break; > } > break; > > What do you think? This might cause surprising results when the U-Boot image on the SPL boot device is damaged for some reason. This kind of fallback device (other than USB boot) should not be enabled by default, in my opinion. baruch > > In the future, please keep i.MX maintainers (Stefano, Fabio) in Cc. > > > Thanks for the advice. You are totally right. > > Regards, > > Walter > > > Thanks, > > baruch > > > > > return 0; > > > } > > > @@ -624,6 +625,54 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) > > > return strcmp(name, tmp_name); > > > } > > > +void board_boot_order(u32 *spl_boot_list) > > > +{ > > > + struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; > > > + unsigned int reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; > > > + u32 boot_mode = imx6_src_get_boot_mode() & IMX6_BMODE_MASK; > > > + unsigned int bmode = readl(&src_base->sbmr2); > > > + > > > + /* If bmode is serial or USB phy is active, return serial */ > > > + if (((bmode >> 24) & 0x03) == 0x01 || is_usbotg_phy_active()) { > > > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > > > + return; > > > + } > > > + > > > + switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { > > > + case IMX6_BMODE_SD: > > > + case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: > > > + case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: > > > + case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: > > > + /* > > > + * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: > > > + * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current > > > + * mmc port > > > + * 0x1 SD2 > > > + * 0x2 SD3 > > > + */ > > > + > > > + reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ > > > + switch (reg) { > > > + case 1: > > > + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); > > > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; > > > + break; > > > + case 2: > > > + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); > > > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + break; > > > + default: > > > + /* By default use USB downloader */ > > > + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > > > + break; > > > + } > > > + > > > + /* As a last resort, use serial downloader */ > > > + spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; > > > +} > > > + > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD > > > #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h> > > > static const struct mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs mx6q_ddr_ioregs = {
On 16/3/20 13:28, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Walter, > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:52:13PM -0300, Walter Lozano wrote: >> Hi Baruch, >> >> 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> >>>> --- >>>> 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 > 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> Thanks. I'll add the tag to the v3. >> Regarding booting from SD/eMMC, I also wonder if having a list of boot >> devices would be useful, like >> >> switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { >> case IMX6_BMODE_SD: >> case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: >> case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: >> case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: >> SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); >> SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); >> >> /* >> * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: >> * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current >> * mmc port >> * 0x1 SD2 >> * 0x2 SD3 >> */ >> >> reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ >> switch (reg) { >> case 1: >> spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; >> spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; >> break; >> case 2: >> spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; >> spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; >> break; >> } >> break; >> >> What do you think? > This might cause surprising results when the U-Boot image on the SPL boot > device is damaged for some reason. This kind of fallback device (other than > USB boot) should not be enabled by default, in my opinion. Thanks for sharing your opinion. I agree with you, but I was still wondering what were your thoughts about this. Regards, Walter > baruch > >>> In the future, please keep i.MX maintainers (Stefano, Fabio) in Cc. >> >> Thanks for the advice. You are totally right. >> >> Regards, >> >> Walter >> >>> Thanks, >>> baruch >>> >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> @@ -624,6 +625,54 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) >>>> return strcmp(name, tmp_name); >>>> } >>>> +void board_boot_order(u32 *spl_boot_list) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; >>>> + unsigned int reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; >>>> + u32 boot_mode = imx6_src_get_boot_mode() & IMX6_BMODE_MASK; >>>> + unsigned int bmode = readl(&src_base->sbmr2); >>>> + >>>> + /* If bmode is serial or USB phy is active, return serial */ >>>> + if (((bmode >> 24) & 0x03) == 0x01 || is_usbotg_phy_active()) { >>>> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >>>> + return; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { >>>> + case IMX6_BMODE_SD: >>>> + case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: >>>> + case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: >>>> + case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: >>>> + /* >>>> + * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: >>>> + * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current >>>> + * mmc port >>>> + * 0x1 SD2 >>>> + * 0x2 SD3 >>>> + */ >>>> + >>>> + reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ >>>> + switch (reg) { >>>> + case 1: >>>> + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); >>>> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; >>>> + break; >>>> + case 2: >>>> + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); >>>> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + break; >>>> + default: >>>> + /* By default use USB downloader */ >>>> + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >>>> + break; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> + /* As a last resort, use serial downloader */ >>>> + spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD >>>> #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h> >>>> static const struct mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs mx6q_ddr_ioregs = {
Hi Walter 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > 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. > > 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> > 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 baruch
Hi Baruch, On 16/3/20 14:25, Baruch Siach wrote: > Hi Walter > > 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> 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? >>> 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> >> 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? Regards, Walter > baruch >
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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> > > > 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
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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> >>>> 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 >
Hi Stefano, Could you please check the status of this patchset and confirm if a v3 is required? On 19/4/20 01:24, Walter Lozano wrote: > 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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> >>>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>>> ???? 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 <baruch at tkos.co.il> >>>>>> 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 >
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 + return 0; } @@ -624,6 +625,54 @@ int board_fit_config_name_match(const char *name) return strcmp(name, tmp_name); } +void board_boot_order(u32 *spl_boot_list) +{ + struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; + unsigned int reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; + u32 boot_mode = imx6_src_get_boot_mode() & IMX6_BMODE_MASK; + unsigned int bmode = readl(&src_base->sbmr2); + + /* If bmode is serial or USB phy is active, return serial */ + if (((bmode >> 24) & 0x03) == 0x01 || is_usbotg_phy_active()) { + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; + return; + } + + switch (boot_mode >> IMX6_BMODE_SHIFT) { + case IMX6_BMODE_SD: + case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: + case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: + case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: + /* + * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: + * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current + * mmc port + * 0x1 SD2 + * 0x2 SD3 + */ + + reg &= 0x3; /* Only care about bottom 2 bits */ + switch (reg) { + case 1: + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc2_pads); + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; + break; + case 2: + SETUP_IOMUX_PADS(usdhc3_pads); + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; + break; + } + break; + default: + /* By default use USB downloader */ + spl_boot_list[0] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; + break; + } + + /* As a last resort, use serial downloader */ + spl_boot_list[1] = BOOT_DEVICE_BOARD; +} + #ifdef CONFIG_SPL_BUILD #include <asm/arch/mx6-ddr.h> static const struct mx6dq_iomux_ddr_regs mx6q_ddr_ioregs = {
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 <walter.lozano at collabora.com> --- board/solidrun/mx6cuboxi/mx6cuboxi.c | 49 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+)