On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 02:31:08PM +0100, Guillaume Gardet wrote: > > > Le 18/02/2016 14:07, Nikita Kiryanov a écrit : > >On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 11:06:32AM +0100, Guillaume Gardet wrote: > >>Hi Tom, Nikita , > >> > >>Le 18/02/2016 10:19, Nikita Kiryanov a écrit : > >>>Hi Tom, Guillaume, > >>> > >>>On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 03:27:22PM -0500, Tom Rini wrote: > >>>>On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:09:27AM +0100, Guillaume GARDET wrote: > >>>> > >>>>>Since commit fd61d39970b9901217efc7536d9f3a61b4e1752a: > >>>>> spl: mmc: add break statements in spl_mmc_load_image() > >>>>>RAW and FS boot modes are now exclusive again. So, if MMCSD_MODE_RAW > >>>>>fails, the > >>>>>board hangs. This patch allows to try MMCSD_MODE_FS then, if available. > >>>>> > >>>>>It has been tested on a beaglebone black to boot on an EXT partition. > >>>>> > >>>>>Signed-off-by: Guillaume GARDET <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Tom Rini <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Nikita Kiryanov <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Igor Grinberg <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Pantelis Antoniou <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Simon Glass <[email protected]> > >>>>>Cc: Matwey V. Kornilov <[email protected]> > >>>>> > >>>>>--- > >>>>> common/spl/spl_mmc.c | 2 +- > >>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>>> > >>>>>diff --git a/common/spl/spl_mmc.c b/common/spl/spl_mmc.c > >>>>>index c3931c6..2eef0f2 100644 > >>>>>--- a/common/spl/spl_mmc.c > >>>>>+++ b/common/spl/spl_mmc.c > >>>>>@@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ int spl_mmc_load_image(u32 boot_device) > >>>>> if (!err) > >>>>> return err; > >>>>> #endif > >>>>>- break; > >>>>>+ /* Fall through */ > >>>>> case MMCSD_MODE_FS: > >>>>> debug("spl: mmc boot mode: fs\n"); > >>>>This also essentially reverts fd61d399. So Nikita, was there a specific > >>>>use case that was broken before, or was the code just unclear in > >>>>intentions here? Thanks! > >>>There was no broken use case that I'm aware of. The change was made as > >>>part of a code improvement series and was meant to address what I > >>>consider to be bad and problematic design. Instead of reverting it > >>>though, how about implementing something similar to what I did in the > >>>main common/spl/spl.c:board_init_r()? You would have a weak function > >>>that will default to the original spl_boot_mode() if not overridden, > >>>and allow the user to define a sequence of boot modes otherwise. > >>The thing is you broke a wanted behavior currently in use. So, the priority > >>is to come back to the previous behavior. > >Could you add a comment indicating that this is wanted behavior that > >has a user, and who the user is? > > Not sure what you mean.
I mean something like: /* If raw mode fails, try fs mode. Some boards, such as beaglebone black, * depend on this funcitonality. */ > I think, "Fall through" code comment explains it (as you done with > MMCSD_MODE_EMMCBOOT). That was meant to communicate a very different type of coupling between the two cases though.. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
