Hi Adam, On Sun, Oct 06 2019, Adam Ford wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 5:23 AM Baruch Siach <bar...@tkos.co.il> wrote: >> (Adding MMC and i.MX maintainers to Cc) >> >> On Fri, Sep 27 2019, Adam Ford wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:38 AM Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 05:07:21PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> >> > Hi Vagrant, >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:16 PM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant at >> >> > debian.org> wrote: >> >> > > >> >> > > I just tested mx6cuboxi with 2019.10-rc4, and it fails to load >> >> > > u-boot.img from MMC: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63089 U-Boot SPL 2019.10-rc4+dfsg-1 (Sep 24 >> >> > > 2019 - >> >> > > 08:03:23 +0000) >> >> > > 2 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63092 Trying to boot from MMC2 >> >> > > 3 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63095 MMC Device 1 not found >> >> > > 4 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63097 spl: could not find mmc device 1. error: >> >> > > -19 >> >> > > 5 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63099 SPL: failed to boot from all boot devices >> >> > > 6 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63101 ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ### >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for reporting this issue. >> >> > >> >> > Unfortunately, I don't have access to my Cuboxi, so I am adding Jon >> >> > and Baruch on Cc. >> >> >> >> Works after reverting the following commit. >> >> >> > I am going to argue that making the board comply with DM_MMC is why I >> > needed to make the patch, because when booting from MMC2, the function >> > was returning MMC1 which was clearly not the boot source. >> > >> > If the boards that fail accept MMC2 as a response when booting from >> > MMC2, that seems like a bug on the indvidual boards. Instead they >> > should setup their boot sequence to configure MMC2 when MMC2 is the >> > boot source. Instead, it seems like some boards are configuring MMC1 >> > with MMC2 info which only prolongs the conversion to DM_MMC. >> > >> > If we revert the patch, then boards like imx6_logic who rely solely on >> > device tree and DM_MMC for booting will have to manually override the >> > MMC driver in order to boot from MMC2, and that seems like a step >> > backwards. I would argue that this board should migrate to DM_MMC and >> > use the device tree to boot, and the problem should go away. >> >> I started working on migration to DM_MMC as you suggested. Unfortunately >> I can't see how this solves the problem for Cubox-i/Hummingboard, nor in >> the general case. >> >> The imx6_logic board happens to use only usdhc1 and usdhc2 for boot, and >> both are always enabled. This matches perfectly to BOOT_DEVICE_MMC{1,2}, >> and their corresponding DT representation. >> >> However, the 'index' parameter in uclass_get_device() that is set >> according to BOOT_DEVICE_MMC{1,2} selection has nothing to do with the >> usdhcX sequence number. It simply returns the Nth probed SD/eMMC device >> (see uclass_find_device()). In the case of Cubox-i/Hummingboard, usdhc1 >> is never used for boot, usdhc2 is always an SD card, and usdhc3 is an >> optional eMMC. When booting from SD card, uclass_get_device(), returns >> -ENODEV when eMMC is not available, or the eMMC device when it is >> available. In both cases, boot fails.
I think you missed this part. See more below. >> In addition, your patch returns BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2 only for usdhc2 >> boot. All others return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1. What about usdhc{3,4}? >> > > My patch only extended it to support MMC1 or MMC2. I don't have > hardware to test MMC3 or MMC4, nor where they defined in the boot > table. > The intention what to eliminate all functions from board files which > did a something like: > > static int mmc_init_spl(bd_t *bis) > { > struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR; > unsigned reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11; > > /* > * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done: > * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current > * mmc port > * 0x1 SD2 > * 0x2 SD3 > */ > switch (reg & 0x3) { > ... > } > } > >> How is all that intended to work? > > Basically the above function determines which BOOT_CFG regiser is used > and returns sets MMC1 values to the returned value. In my case MMC1 > was going to be configured with the clock and pin mux of mmc1 or 2. > In your case, mmc1 gets configured with the information for mmc2 or 3. But there is another side effect to this change. The code in spl_mmc.c uses BOOT_DEVICE_MMC* macros to determine the boot device as I mentioned above. These macros have nothing to do with usdhcX sequence numbering. When usdhc1 is missing, BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1 refers to usdhc2 which happens to be the first probed device, and BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2 becomes usdhc3. This code is broken since commit 14d319b185. spl_boot_device() can not blindly return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC{1,2} without knowing which devices are actually available. There must be some other way to achieve what you want without breaking boot when usdhc1 is missing. > Since it appears that arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c is supposed to be able > to return the correct boot source, my goal was to make that function > actually return that which could eliminate the above function on all > boards. Unfortunately, I don't have hardware with MMC3 or MMC4, so I > couldn't test it and therefore didn't write it into the code. It was > my hope that someone with MMC3 or MMC4 would be able to easily expand > it in the hope to better facilitate support for DM_MMC and device tree > in SPL. > >> Aren't other i.MX boards impacted by this commit? > > Yes and no. If they only support MMC1 or MMC2 and have DM_MMC with > device tree support, the theory is that mmc_init_spl(bd_t *bis) > function can be completely eliminated. People with MMC3 and MMC4 as > boot sources are quite possibly impacted, but like I said before, I > was trying to lay the foundation for people to migrate into a > direction to eliminate individual functions and share common files > more easily. > > You can try this: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h > index e568af2561..e94a295eda 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h > @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ enum { > BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1, > BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2, > BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2_2, > + BOOT_DEVICE_MMC3, > + BOOT_DEVICE_MMC4, > BOOT_DEVICE_NAND, > BOOT_DEVICE_ONENAND, > BOOT_DEVICE_NOR, > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c > index 1f230aca33..bf72d03eee 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c > @@ -87,7 +87,11 @@ u32 spl_boot_device(void) > case IMX6_BMODE_ESD: > case IMX6_BMODE_MMC: > case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC: > - if (mmc_index == 1) > + if (mmc_index == 3) > + return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC4; > + else if (mmc_index == 2) > + return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC3; > + else if (mmc_index == 1) > return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2; > else > return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1; > > It's only compile-only tested. This patch deals with another issue that commit 14d319b185 causes. But I'm afraid this patch can not fix boot for me, as explained above. baruch > I am hoping someone from NXP or the MMC maintainer might having some > thoughts on what might be missing (if anything) > > adam >> >> Thanks, >> baruch >> >> >> 14d319b1856b86e593e01abd0a1e3c2d63b52a8a is the first bad commit >> >> commit 14d319b1856b86e593e01abd0a1e3c2d63b52a8a >> >> Author: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> >> >> Date: Thu May 23 14:11:30 2019 -0500 >> >> >> >> spl: imx6: Let spl_boot_device return USDHC1 or USDHC2 >> >> >> >> Currently, when the spl_boot_device checks the boot device, it >> >> will only return MMC1 when it's either sd or eMMC regardless >> >> of whether or not it's MMC1 or MMC2. This is a problem when >> >> booting from MMC2 if MMC isn't being manually configured like in >> >> the DM_SPL case with SPL_OF_CONTROL. >> >> >> >> This patch will check the register and return either MMC1 or MMC2. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> >> >> >> >> arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c | 8 +++++--- >> >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{= - bar...@tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il - _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot