Hi Tom,
On 12/07/2018 10:13 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 02:24:22PM +0100, Philipp Tomsich wrote: >> Kever, >> >>> On 07.12.2018, at 02:39, Kever Yang <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Philipp, >>> >>> On 12/06/2018 09:50 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote: >>>> +Tom >>>> >>>>> On 05.12.2018, at 03:25, Kever Yang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The U-Boot eMMC does not need to care about the power for Rockchip >>>>> SoC, because if the board is using eMMC, the power will default on >>>>> (for bootrom), and we do not do power management for it like kernel, >>>>> so the 'vmmc', 'vqmmc' is only useful for SD in U-Boot. >>>>> >>>>> This make U-Boot can boot into kernel even if the pmic driver is >>>>> broken. >>>> If the PMIC driver is broken, we should fix the PMIC driver. >>>> I would feel more comfortable w/o this statement. >>>> >>>>> The rk3288-evb dts may be used in many boards using rockchip reference >>>>> schematic but with little change, so we hope it can be more robust to >>>>> boot into next stage. >>>> Again, this is not how the DTS should be used. I believe that Heiko, >>>> Fabio and >>>> I had already highlighted this in comments to the earlier thread. >>> Not sure if you have read my previous mail for answer all your comments, >>> >>> I do agree DTS should represent the hardware, but please note that the DTS >>> is no kind of standard, and people always choose what they need and add >>> those part in there dts, but not always add all the property and >>> everyone use the same model. I would say there are many boards does not >>> have this >>> 'vmmc-supply’ in there emmc node. >> That is exactly the reason why I bumped the decision up the stairs (to Tom >> and/or >> Simon): what you are saying makes sense to me (viewed through your eyes and >> from your specific usecase), but it directly contradicts how the DTS usage >> is intended. >> >> In other words: Tom (as the top-level decision maker) or Simon (who owns the >> device-model and therefore will also have an opinion on DTS usage) should >> make >> the final call. > My answer is that I would strongly suspect that over in linux "we have N > different close-enough boards using this one DTS" isn't acceptable. You > make a dtsi and include it from the board and things that aren't common > don't go into the dtsi. And yes, when starting off everyone (myself > included) copies the reference platform dts and then changes it as > needed, and sometimes misses a thing or two. But no, I don't think we > want a wrong dts and I'm pretty sure the kernel really wouldn't want > wrong dts files and the general goal is that excluding the -u-boot.dtsi > files, ours are copies of the kernel. I don't think this is a "wrong dts" after my patch, these two nodes are not mark as required property in kernel, so many dts emmc node does not have it. I check the latest kernel dtsi in arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi [1], the emmc node do not have 'vmmc' and 'vqmmc' while the SD node have, which just like description in my commit message. Well, I don't know why U-Boot project is so difficult to accept a reasonable patch now, I don't want to make you unhappy, but make 'every board must have its own dts' in U-Boot to make every developer to join U-Boot does not make sense to me. The kernel need different dts for different board because they need to use/control those different feature, but U-Boot is not the case, U-Boot should work if the storage driver works. Thanks, - Kever [1] https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/arch/arm/boot/dts/rk3288-evb.dtsi#L208 > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
