On Wednesday 22 February 2023 16:17:32 Tony Dinh wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:40 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2023 15:16:06 Tony Dinh wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Wed, Feb 22, 2023 at 3:06 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Wednesday 22 February 2023 14:16:36 Tony Dinh wrote:
Hi Pali,
On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 11:58 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote:
On Tuesday 21 February 2023 21:45:07 Tony Dinh wrote: > Hi Pali, > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 3:14 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote: > > > > On Tuesday 21 February 2023 15:06:16 Tony Dinh wrote: > > > Hi Pali, > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 12:22 PM Pali Rohár pali@kernel.org wrote: > > > > > > > > This patch series contains various improvements and fixes for existing > > > > logical errors. Boot phase was adjusted to match behavior of Armada 385 > > > > BootROM by inspecting and disassembling of BootROM binary dump itself. > > > > Important information are included in documentation patch for kwboot. > > > > Most of the changes are untested, hence this patch series is just RFC. > > > > So please test changes before applying, idealy on SPI, SATA and SD/MMC. > > > > Nevertheless all patches on github passed CI testing in this PR: > > > > https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/pull/275 > > ... > > > I went to patchwork and downloaded the series. > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20230221201925.9644-2-pali@... > > > > > > When I applied the patches set there were some rejections. > > > <BEGIN LOG> > > > # patch -p1 < /usr/src/builds-u-boot-marvell/pali_patches/arm-mvebu-Various-fixes.patch > > > > > ... > > FAILED > > ... > > > <END LOG> > > > > > > I'm on the latest master branch (just did a git pull today). Could > > > some patches be out of order? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Tony > > > > Well, that is because DENX mail server is broken and it crashed during > > processing antispam filter on my some of my patches. So some patches are > > missing in archive and then applying dependent patches failed. > > > > So ignore patchwork and email patches. Rather fetch changes from the > > mentioned github pull request https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/pull/275 > > > > You can do it via git command (it fetch it to the new mvebu branch): > > > > git fetch https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot.git refs/pull/275/merge:mvebu > > Indeed! That pull request was applied without problem. > > So I did a general regression test running rebuilt kwboot binary, and > rebuilt u-boot images for these 2 Marvell boards: > > Thecus N2350 (Armada 385) > Pogo V4 (Kirkwood 88F6192). > > So for that part: > Tested-by: Tony Dinh mibodhi@gmail.com > > All the best, > Tony
Thanks for testing! Anyway do you have some A38x board which can boot from SD/MMC, SATA or NAND? This is what is needed to test too. I see that Pogo boots from NAND but it does not use SPL.
I have only one A38x board with NAND: the Thecus N2350. I am creating a new defconfig and will see if I can boot it from the NAND flash.
Ok. And do you have some switch on this board which instruct BootROM to really boot from NAND?
No switch that I can see. So I'm going to erase the u-boot image in SPI to let the BootROM try booting from NAND.
BootROM on 32-bit mvebu SoCs always boots from the location configured by strapping pins. So if you do not have any switch (or possible soldered zero-ohm resistors) on the board then I doubt that BootROM will try to boot from NAND.
Argh! I misremember that boot flow, it must have been for another SoC. Then I guess I have to look at the board again to see if there is any jumper/switch... Perhaps the other way is to run in the BootROM debugging prompt and set the boot device to NAND?
Hm... You can try it. But when I tried on A385 to set boot device to SPI-NOR from debugging prompt it did not work and I suspect bug in BootROM. But maybe setting boot device to NAND would work. Who knows.
By the way, I'm having this build error that CFG_SYS_NAND_BASE is not defined. What should it be for A38x? is it the same for Kirkwood?
All the best, Tony
Is SYS_NAND_BASE really needed? If yet then I think it should be macro MVEBU_NAND_BASE.
The build error looks like this: drivers/mtd/nand/raw/nand.c:15:34: error: ‘CFG_SYS_NAND_BASE’ undeclared here (not in a function); did you mean ‘CFG_SYS_PL310_BASE’? 15 | #define CFG_SYS_NAND_BASE_LIST { CFG_SYS_NAND_BASE }
I see... Maybe you can try to enable SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT.
Thanks, that was it. I did configure the board incorrectly :) I need CONFIG_NAND_PXA3XX which selects SYS_NAND_SELF_INIT.
Perfect! Anyway for booting from NAND you do not have CONFIG_NAND_PXA3XX support. You need CONFIG_NAND_PXA3XX if you want to access NAND from u-boot (e.g. for writing bootloder there; so you need it at least once).
Thanks, Tony
But on Kirkwood is SYS_NAND_BASE set to the DEFADR_NANDF value which is memory mapping of NAND device via mbus. On Armada devices is not NAND device mbus mapped at all and MVEBU_NAND_BASE points to internal mvebu registers. So I'm quite not sure if it would work.
So lets try with MVEBU_NAND_BASE.
OK.
Thanks, Tony