> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 13:30:47 -0500 > From: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:16:35AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2022 at 03:29, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Michael Walle <mich...@walle.cc> > > > > Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:35:44 +0100 > > > > > > > > > The bootdevs have a natural priority, based on the assumed speed of > > > > > the device, so the board would only need to intervene (with an env var > > > > > or a devicetree property) when that is wrong. > > > > > > > > Does this make sense in general? The default boot order for a > > > > board should depend on what is available on board (or on the > > > > carrier board) and what is pluggable. I doubt there can be a sane > > > > default, so almost all boards will have to define its own > > > > boot order anyway. > > > > Please can you be more specific about what you the problem is here? If > > the board does not have a device then it will not exist in driver > > model (or will not probe) and it won't have a bootdev (or it won't > > probe). That seems to be equivalent to me. > > So, I'm not sure how much of a problem it is, since the board can still > define the default probe order via environment. But pick any random SoC > with more than 1 SD/MMC set of lines on the chip. Youboard may put the > first as SD slot and second as eMMC and Myboard may do the opposite and > both are going to probe in the same order since it's the same chip. > > That's what I think Mark is getting at with it not really making sense > to just rely on probe order as what to try.
Something like that. I remember a lot of issues when boards were switched over to DM_MMC and the boot order changed. I believe this ended up beging solved by having aliases in the device tree.
