Hi Vagrant, On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 13:32, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote: > > On 2023-02-20, Simon Glass wrote: > > On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 19:19, Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> wrote: > >> On 2022-12-07, Simon Glass wrote: > >> > Drop the use of scripts and rely on standard boot for all operation. > >> > >> This patch, applied as 3891c68ef50eda38d78c95ecd03aed030aa6bb53 broke > >> booting on pinebook-pro-rk3399, which still tries to "run > >> distro_bootcmd" but distro_bootcmd is no longer defined... probably > >> several other rk3399 systems are similarly affected? Maybe other > >> rockchip systems as well? Reverting the patch fixes booting on the > >> pinebook-pro-rk3399, at least. > >> > >> It seems that rockpro64-rk3399 was used as an example, so that > >> presumably works, but in actuality, this commit only modifies common > >> files for many rockchip and rk3399 boards and nothing rockpro64-rk3399 > >> specific, so the commit message is a bit misleading. > >> > >> I am not sure what the best way forward is; to quickly convert all the > >> other boards in a new patch series, or incrementally shift one system at > >> a time over (and somehow restore previous behavior in the > >> meantime?)... as it stands it appears we are left with rk3399 boards > >> partially converted but broken... > >> > >> FWIW, I have not confirmed for sure that other boards are broken, so it > >> might just be pinebook-pro-rk3399 for some reason. I have a few rk3399 > >> based boards I can test to confirm... > > > > I suspect it needs BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS enabled. Could you try that? I can > > send a patch if you like? > > I added CONFIG_BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS=y to > configs/pinebook-pro-rk3399_defconfig but it still had the same issue... > > bootcmd does not get updated to use bootstd instead of distro_bootcmd > ... and distro_bootcmd is not defined, so it fails to boot! At least it > gets as far as a u-boot prompt! > > > As mentioned on irc, I wasn't able to get rockpro64-rk3399 to boot at > all (hanging at SPL), so cannot test if it also needs further changes > for BOOTSTD to work... and for good measure, rock64-rk3328 also fails in > the same way. > > I also have puma-rk3399, firefly-rk3399 and firefly-rk3288 to > test... though might wait on some of those till the dust settles a > bit...
Yes, see my note about this a few minutes back. I sent 3 patches at lunchtime too: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=343056 Regards, Simon
