+Kever Max,
> On 14.12.2018, at 09:21, Max Kellermann <m...@blarg.de> wrote: > > On 2018/12/13 22:59, Philipp Tomsich <philipp.toms...@theobroma-systems.com> > wrote: >> On 04.12.2018, at 12:00, Max Kellermann <max.kellerm...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> This was changed to 1 in commit 0717dde057e, but a few months later, >>> commit 5f9411af37b swapped the order of eMMC and SD card by assigning >>> indexed aliases to `&sdhci` and `&sdmmc`. >> >> If this is a straight revert, I’d appreciate it if the was marked as such by >> creating the commit using a 'git revert’ and then adding additional >> background >> to explain why the revert was done. > > Technically, it is a straight revert, but I replaced git's boilerplate > text with a descriptive commit message, without omitting any > information from the boilerplate. If you prefer to leave the full > boilerplate text in, I can re-add it and resend the patch. > > However, semantically, it is not a revert, because it does not revert > the semantic effect of commit 0717dde057e; quite opposite, it restores > the effect of commit 0717dde057e after it was broken by commit > 5f9411af37b. > >> However, we have a bigger issue here: the original commit has been in the >> tree since 2016 and I am reluctant to change such fundamental naming without >> a rationale. This is particularily in knowledge of the on-list discussion >> that we’ve >> had with Kever recently regarding his request to change the search order for >> booting. > > The naming was (accidently?) changed in commit 5f9411af37b, which > effectively undid the effect of commit 0717dde057e, and my patch only > repairs that. > >> Could you explain why you think that this should be changed? > > The goal of commit 0717dde057e was to boot from eMMC by default, and > at the time, eMMC was "mmc1". Later, commit 5f9411af37b swapped the > order of "mmc", making eMMC="mmc0". This broke commit 0717dde057e. > > This is how it looks like on my AIO-3399J: > > => mmc list > dwmmc@fe320000: 1 > sdhci@fe330000: 0 (eMMC) > > As you see, CONFIG_SYS_MMC_ENV_DEV=1 will boot from SD card, not from > eMMC. > > I submitted the patch because it looked like the side effect of commit > 5f9411af37b was an accident, so I attempted fixed it. Unfortunately this seems less like a side-effect of that change than of the fact that there’s a variety of RK3399 boards out there that don’t have dedicated board-support in U-Boot and the EVB-defaults may be wrong. The RK3399-EVB board-suupport does not provide any support to either identify what board it’s on or to allow overriding these device-order. @Kever: Could you please confirm whether the CONFIG_SYS_MMC_ENV_DEV is appropriate for the EVB itself or if it should be changed for the EVB’s config globally? Thanks, Philipp. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
