On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:37:04AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > Hi Tom, > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 12:19 AM Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 12:17:15AM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 12:02 AM Michael Nazzareno Trimarchi > > > <mich...@amarulasolutions.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi jagan > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon., 8 Apr. 2019, 8:26 pm Tom Rini, <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 06:23:29PM +0530, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > >> > Hi Paul, > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 6:00 PM Paul Kocialkowski > > > >> > <paul.kocialkow...@bootlin.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi, > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Thu, 2019-04-04 at 05:51 -0300, Pablo Sebastián Greco wrote: > > > >> > > > A few days ago I tried to boot my Bananapi_M2_Ultra with > > > >> > > > 2019.04rc, I > > > >> > > > found that it wasn't booting, 2019.01 was working ok. > > > >> > > > Bisecting indicated that the problem was after > > > >> > > > http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot.git;a=commitdiff;h=a7cca5793774ee139b75a704d6efaa4d29f09f93 > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think the patch should be reverted ASAP since it obviously breaks > > > >> > > some supported configs. Sadly, the offending commit doesn't say > > > >> > > anything about the test coverage for the change and what the > > > >> > > status is > > > >> > > after it. There is probably a reason why it was enabled for sun4i > > > >> > > only > > > >> > > before and there must have been a motivation for doing this on all > > > >> > > sunxi platforms, but then again, the commit message says nothing > > > >> > > about > > > >> > > those underlying reasons. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I believe we should be more strict on patch review and not let any > > > >> > > change bringing such a major change get applied with a commit > > > >> > > message > > > >> > > that provides no context about why the change is okay and how it > > > >> > > was > > > >> > > tested. > > > >> > > > > >> > Appropriate your concern. > > > >> > > > > >> > If you please list what all boards are not working with this effect, > > > >> > please write back. we will defiantly look into it. All these changes > > > >> > were merged in MW which is 2.5 months back, commenting in final stage > > > >> > like this is not the professional way. > > > >> > > > >> Being release day, here's my big concern. How bad is this? Is it a > > > >> single platform? Later in the thread Jagan did enumerate the SoCs he > > > >> tested the overall series on. But there's a lot of Allwinner SoCs and > > > >> boards. I have a pine64 somewhere around here, but that's already been > > > >> checked off. My other allwinner platform I took out of my testing loop > > > >> due to it not being a reliable piece of hardware. So, does anyone have > > > >> a feel for how many platforms may or may not be broken right now? > > > >> Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > You have 13 to 15 boards. Can you just report all of them? > > > > > > Issue, seems to be on SCSI side. MMC is able to probe and boot (you > > > may see initial logs on the thread). Enabling DM_MMC breaking SCSI > > > reads, debugging same with Pablo will get back. > > > > OK, thanks, please keep us up to date! > > As expected, SCSI reads failing. DM_MMC is forcing BLK so which > expecting boards to enable DM_SCSI. So the migration plan for DM_SCSI > and DM_MMC should be in same line, as of now it's not.
Ah, is the scsi driver for Allwinner DM-ified yet? And for the release I'd really like to do today can we just switch off DM_MMC on the DM_SCSI Allwinner platforms? -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
