[U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."
Upon further inspection and review and chatting with kernel folks, what happens here is that what mmcblk# a device gets is based on probe order. So a system with an SD card inserted with place eMMC on mmcblk1, but without an SD card, it will be on mmcblk0. So U-boot can only provide a best guess. In this case, if no SD card is present, we would want to pass mmcblk0p2 still. If an SD card is present, it woudl be able to provide a uEnv.txt that would be loaded (even if the kernel is NOT there) which can still update mmcroot variable.
This reverts commit 827512fb1154c05c6eb1e2259e936df55c98a535.
Cc: Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com --- include/configs/am335x_evm.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h index e8e5275..f746e48 100644 --- a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h +++ b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ "run mmcboot;" \ "setenv mmcdev 1; " \ "setenv bootpart 1:2; " \ - "setenv mmcroot /dev/mmcblk1p2 ro; " \ "run mmcboot;" \ "run nandboot;"
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
Upon further inspection and review and chatting with kernel folks, what happens here is that what mmcblk# a device gets is based on probe order. So a system with an SD card inserted with place eMMC on mmcblk1, but without an SD card, it will be on mmcblk0. So U-boot can only provide a best guess. In this case, if no SD card is present, we would want to pass mmcblk0p2 still. If an SD card is present, it woudl be able to provide a uEnv.txt that would be loaded (even if the kernel is NOT there) which can still update mmcroot variable.
This reverts commit 827512fb1154c05c6eb1e2259e936df55c98a535.
Cc: Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
include/configs/am335x_evm.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h index e8e5275..f746e48 100644 --- a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h +++ b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ "run mmcboot;" \ "setenv mmcdev 1; " \ "setenv bootpart 1:2; " \
- "setenv mmcroot /dev/mmcblk1p2 ro; " \ "run mmcboot;" \ "run nandboot;"
-- 1.7.9.5
are you sure about this? note that, in the above, you've *already* tried to mmcboot off of device mmcblk0 and, for one reason or another, that failed. so u-boot then *explicitly* switches to mmc dev 1 with:
setenv mmcdev 1 setenv bootpart 1:2
why would it not make sense to also switch mmcroot there as well?
rday
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/08/2013 11:34 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
Upon further inspection and review and chatting with kernel folks, what happens here is that what mmcblk# a device gets is based on probe order. So a system with an SD card inserted with place eMMC on mmcblk1, but without an SD card, it will be on mmcblk0. So U-boot can only provide a best guess. In this case, if no SD card is present, we would want to pass mmcblk0p2 still. If an SD card is present, it woudl be able to provide a uEnv.txt that would be loaded (even if the kernel is NOT there) which can still update mmcroot variable.
This reverts commit 827512fb1154c05c6eb1e2259e936df55c98a535.
Cc: Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
include/configs/am335x_evm.h | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h index e8e5275..f746e48 100644 --- a/include/configs/am335x_evm.h +++ b/include/configs/am335x_evm.h @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ "run mmcboot;" \ "setenv mmcdev 1; " \ "setenv bootpart 1:2; " \
- "setenv mmcroot /dev/mmcblk1p2 ro; " \ "run mmcboot;" \ "run nandboot;"
-- 1.7.9.5
are you sure about this? note that, in the above, you've *already* tried to mmcboot off of device mmcblk0 and, for one reason or another, that failed. so u-boot then *explicitly* switches to mmc dev 1 with:
setenv mmcdev 1 setenv bootpart 1:2
why would it not make sense to also switch mmcroot there as well?
Yes, I'm very sure after talking with the kernel folks and playing with a tree with all of the EDMA stuff fixed up so we can use modern kernels again. But you can see this on the vendor kernel BBB ships with too. If you have an SD card and eMMC, SD card will be mmcblk0 and eMMC mmcblk1. If you however just root from eMMC, it will become mmcblk0. The only time you have mmcblk1 is when you have both SD card inserted and eMMC present.
Note that omap5 uevm has a different issue I shall be posting a patch for soon, need to get the board back into my setup.
- -- Tom
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 11:12:32AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
Upon further inspection and review and chatting with kernel folks, what happens here is that what mmcblk# a device gets is based on probe order. So a system with an SD card inserted with place eMMC on mmcblk1, but without an SD card, it will be on mmcblk0. So U-boot can only provide a best guess. In this case, if no SD card is present, we would want to pass mmcblk0p2 still. If an SD card is present, it woudl be able to provide a uEnv.txt that would be loaded (even if the kernel is NOT there) which can still update mmcroot variable.
This reverts commit 827512fb1154c05c6eb1e2259e936df55c98a535.
Cc: Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca Signed-off-by: Tom Rini trini@ti.com
Applied to u-boot/master.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
... snip ...
Applied to u-boot/master.
dumb question but what does it mean to say "Applied to u-boot/master" when it clearly has not been applied to master? i can see posts like that, but doing a "git pull" produces nothing. i am on the u-boot mainline, and the "master" branch, so what am i misunderstanding? thanks.
rday
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
... snip ...
Applied to u-boot/master.
dumb question but what does it mean to say "Applied to u-boot/master" when it clearly has not been applied to master? i can see posts like that, but doing a "git pull" produces nothing. i am on the u-boot mainline, and the "master" branch, so what am i misunderstanding? thanks.
The public git/http server is only synced every 6hours...
Regards,
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
... snip ...
Applied to u-boot/master.
dumb question but what does it mean to say "Applied to u-boot/master" when it clearly has not been applied to master? i can see posts like that, but doing a "git pull" produces nothing. i am on the u-boot mainline, and the "master" branch, so what am i misunderstanding? thanks.
The public git/http server is only synced every 6hours...
i'm not convinced. i'm looking at this posting from yesterday:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164517.html
timestamped "Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:02:08PM +0200" which contains a change i'm interested in and, as of this minute, it doesn't appear in master.
rday
--
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:28:23PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
... snip ...
Applied to u-boot/master.
dumb question but what does it mean to say "Applied to u-boot/master" when it clearly has not been applied to master? i can see posts like that, but doing a "git pull" produces nothing. i am on the u-boot mainline, and the "master" branch, so what am i misunderstanding? thanks.
The public git/http server is only synced every 6hours...
i'm not convinced. i'm looking at this posting from yesterday:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164517.html
timestamped "Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:02:08PM +0200" which contains a change i'm interested in and, as of this minute, it doesn't appear in master.
That's when Albert sent his email. My reply is "Tue Oct 8 21:33:30 CEST 2013", so yes, we haven't hit the re-sync window just yet.
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 05:28:23PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Robert Nelson wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day rpjday@crashcourse.ca wrote:
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote:
... snip ...
Applied to u-boot/master.
dumb question but what does it mean to say "Applied to u-boot/master" when it clearly has not been applied to master? i can see posts like that, but doing a "git pull" produces nothing. i am on the u-boot mainline, and the "master" branch, so what am i misunderstanding? thanks.
The public git/http server is only synced every 6hours...
i'm not convinced. i'm looking at this posting from yesterday:
http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2013-October/164517.html
timestamped "Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 10:02:08PM +0200" which contains a change i'm interested in and, as of this minute, it doesn't appear in master.
That's when Albert sent his email. My reply is "Tue Oct 8 21:33:30 CEST 2013", so yes, we haven't hit the re-sync window just yet.
ah, got it.
rday
participants (3)
-
Robert Nelson -
Robert P. J. Day -
Tom Rini