Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Robert P. J. Day
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 > > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > > ... snip ... >

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Tom Rini
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 > > wrote: > > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > ... snip ... > > > > > >> Applied to u-boot/master. > > > > > > d

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Robert P. J. Day
On Tue, 8 Oct 2013, Robert Nelson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day > 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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Robert Nelson
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Robert P. J. Day 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, b

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Robert P. J. Day
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, an

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Tom Rini
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

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Tom Rini
-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 syst

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Robert P. J. Day
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 mmcblk

[U-Boot] [PATCH] Revert "am335x_evm.h: If mmcdev and bootpart switch to mmcdev 1, so should mmcroot."

2013-10-08 Thread Tom Rini
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.