Hi Maxime,

On 17 July 2017 at 03:26, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:47:45AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> On 5 July 2017 at 14:14, Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 04:57:40PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:33:25PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >> > Hi Maxime,
>> >> >
>> >> > On 21 June 2017 at 01:31, Maxime Ripard
>> >> > <maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> >> > > Hi Simon,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:11:27AM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
>> >> > >> Add a driver-model version of this driver which mostly uses the 
>> >> > >> existing
>> >> > >> code. The old code can be removed once all boards are switched over.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm not sure if you tested that, but we have some code that switches
>> >> > > the MMC indices when using both an eMMC and an external MMC.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=blob;f=board/sunxi/board.c#l494
>> >> > >
>> >> > > This predates my time, but it seems that it was done to have a
>> >> > > consistent boot MMC device ID.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I'm not really sure we can get rid of it (even if it creates some
>> >> > > issues of it's own), but what would be the impact of a switch to the
>> >> > > device model on that logic?
>> >> >
>> >> > That is a pretty terrible hack.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I know. This is especially bad when used together with other
>> >> tools that rely on one MMC index for example (such as fastboot).
>> >>
>> >> I wanted to kill it for quite some time, but I'm a bit reluctant due
>> >> to the possible side effects.
>> >>
>> >> > I'm not sure whether it will continue to work with DM. It does still
>> >> > use the device number in the block device, so maybe...  Do you have
>> >> > a board would use this?
>> >>
>> >> I guess I do. I'll give it a try or tonight and let you know.
>> >
>> > I just tested. Even with an eMMC (which was the first use case for
>> > that hack), it works, even things that are not mainline yet (fastboot,
>> > etc).
>> >
>> > It obviously break the old scripts relying on the mmc index, but I
>> > guess that's ok.
>> >
>> > There's one regression though. Our eMMC will always be the second one,
>> > which means that the distro bootargs will always boot on the external
>> > SD first (which is always going to be mmc0).
>> >
>> > That's due to the fact that the eMMC controller is the third one, and
>> > is thus probed last. We obviously want something deterministic for
>> > fastboot for example, but booting partitions of the media you started
>> > from make sense I guess. And this is what this hack was trying to
>> > address.
>>
>> OK...so what should we do here?
>
> I guess we should just drop the hack. We'll have to at some point
> anyway. But I guess we should also find a way to tweak the distro
> bootcmd at boot time to search for the medium that we booted on first.
>
> I'm not really sure how to do this though.

Well in that case let's drop the hack and someone will pick it up when
it hits them.

Regards,
Simon
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Reply via email to