On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 6:48 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 05:22:03PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 5:09 PM Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 3:58 PM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 10 Oct 2023 at 04:39, Guillaume Gardet Guillaume.Gardet@arm.com wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 12:22 PM To: Guillaume Gardet Guillaume.Gardet@arm.com Cc: mbrugger@suse.com; Ivan Ivanov ivan.ivanov@suse.com; Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org; u-boot@lists.denx.de Subject: Re: U-Boot 2023.10 does not boot from uSD on RPi4
On Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 10:26 AM Guillaume Gardet Guillaume.Gardet@arm.com wrote: > > Hi, > > U-Boot 2023.10 does not boot from uSD on RPi4. > This has been found on openSUSE Tumbleweed. The only diff we need is: > -CONFIG_OF_EMBED=y > +CONFIG_OF_BOARD=y > To use firmware provided Device Tree. But that should not affect the mmc behavior too much, I think.
I've been booting Fedora fine on a RPi4 BUT there's issues with the display turning off [1] when the accelerated display modules load (vc4) as a result of this patch set. Can you confirm if that's the same problem you're seeing?
No, that's not my problem. My issue is grub was not loaded by u-boot from uSD. It seems more like Simon's problem: https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-October/533162.html
@Simon, can you check if the patch below fixes your boot problem on RPi4, please?
This has been reported at least twice before. There is a fix [2] which is in my queue to apply.
Looking at that patch it scans the first 3 devices, how does it handle non storage devices like SDIO WiFi modules? It shouldn't be trying to scan those.
And in the case of the RPi the other enabled SDHCI interface is the WiFi, why would we even be trying to boot off a non storage interface, something here just feels broken/wrong in general.
The patch does make it work with pure upstream, and I'm not sure why the Fedora build boots it fine out of the box, but the patch just feels like it's hacking around some other underlying problem with bootstd, we didn't have this problem with the previous method and trying to boot off non storage interfaces feels like it could cause other problems.
I think the answer here is that we're doing the best we can given that we just don't know until run time what we have. In the case where sdhci
Well that's not entirely true in the case of mmc/sdhci, we know what devices could be storage, such as when a device is a mSD or eMMC or a wifi interface, those don't change from boot to boot, a SDHCI interface on one boot is not mysteriously going to become a emmc storage unit the next boot.
is something other than storage, we get as far as asking "are you a block device?" which then fails when sdhci is a WiFi an not an eMMC. This does mean the user could notice "Card did not respond to voltage select! : -110" being printed, and I don't know if we should do anything about that (it's a handy message when your uSD isn't fully inserted, etc). But since we (can) support everything on a single build, we just have to figure it out at run time.
It has caused issues and it causes bug reports from users which is an issue for me as a maintainer as it wastes my time. In short it's not a great user experience.
Overall the last few U-Boot releases have been a nightmare from my PoV, I have spent *all* my available time for upstream U-Boot dealing with regressions.
In the case of the RPi I currently have 3 issues, 1) display 2) mSD 3) USB (that Ivan has also mentioned). The 3 of these together make things very hard to bisect and I am struggling. I also have 3 other devices with issues I'm trying to debug for the Fedora release, and the asahi people have also reported [1] regressions in their fork. I honestly regret applying the bootstd patches.
When even Simon [2] is losing track of things I think we need to change approach, the problems here upstream are nearly breaking me and for Fedora I am now considering just forking U-Boot and cherry picking the patches from upstream we need for particular devices and features. It's absolutely not something I want to do but I feel it's getting to the point I need to do it for the Fedora users and my sanity.
I like the concept of bootstd and other features but the quantity of patches, and sometimes other series of change for changes sake, where the testing is clearly either not there, or is relying on "it works on CI" [3] (and other examples) and is clearly not tested on real HW makes some of the churn hugely problematic, similarly the applying of patches when there's been opposition and push back for the sake of it (eg NFSv1 patch) as is things like force enabling people's pet projects (looking at VBE here) where there's no actual real world users and real security ramifications (alternate unaudited boot methods of devices) also adds to my thought process for forking.
I feel we as a project need to have a proper discussion about these things.
Peter
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2244305#c6 [2] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-October/534348.html [3] https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2023-October/534442.html