[U-Boot] [RESENT PATCH 1/2] rockchip: rk3128: use ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG to update reboot flag

[Philipp Tomsich]

Simon,

> On 29.11.2018, at 19:43, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kever,
> 
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 at 18:10, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com <mailto:kever.yang at rock-chips.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Philipp,
>> 
>> 
>> On 11/28/2018 05:07 PM, Philipp Tomsich wrote:
>>> Kever,
>>> 
>>>> On 28.11.2018, at 03:04, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Use ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG instead of grf structure so that
>>>> we can re-use the source code later.
>>>> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com>
>>> NAK, as there are still pending changes.
>> Yes, I got that, and I send out my comments on your comments with no
>> more response.
>>> See below for the reminder, in case this got lost.
>>> 
>>>> ---
>>>> 
>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig        | 1 +
>>>> arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3128-board.c | 5 +----
>>>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>> 
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> index 145d96b1f0..94a03e2a38 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ config TPL_ROCKCHIP_BACK_TO_BROM
>>>> config ROCKCHIP_BOOT_MODE_REG
>>>>     hex "Rockchip boot mode flag register address"
>>>>     default 0x200081c8 if ROCKCHIP_RK3036
>>>> +    default 0x100a0038 if ROCKCHIP_RK3128
>>>>     default 0x20004040 if ROCKCHIP_RK3188
>>>>     default 0x110005c8 if ROCKCHIP_RK322X
>>>>     default 0xff730094 if ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>>> As previously discussed: these should all go into header files, as they are not user-configurable.
>>> This affects multiple patch series (as I requested the same for the STIMER address).
>> I believe you mention about this: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/891462/
>> Now the model in u-boot rockchip channel is:
>> - People send out patches to mailing list;
>> - The patch get an ACK patch and review patch may request for change in
>> 1 week~4 months;
>> - According to the maintainer's comment, people reply for why the patch
>> like this,
>>   and maybe the patch do not need to change just like what the
>> maintainer want.
>> - BUT, there will never be more reply/comments.
>> - Then, people have to resend the patches they think it may be
>> reasonable, and maintainer
>>   then complain people doesn't address his comment.
>> 
>> For this patch, I think:
>> - This is not an first patch for this operation, this just make rk3128
>> work like other SoCs, it's not a new feature;
>> - This kind of default value setting is all over the U-Boot project, I'm
>> not say it's correct,
>>  but it's a good solution and convenient for us to use the same object
>> with different value in different SoCs,
>>  It's much better to separate them into more then 10 header files or
>> lots of "#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIIP_RK3128"
>>  in one header files.
>> 
>>  I hope I can get reply for this mail this time.
>> 
>> Hi Simon,
>>    Could you help to comment on this?
> 
> What happens if the user changes the value?
> 
> Can this go in the device tree?
> 
> It seems like this should be in a driver, to me. We have a SYSCON
> driver for GRF. Should we add an ioctl-type interface to it?

This affects a number of settings by now, including the addresses for the 
debug UARTs, secure timer base addresses and the boot-mode register.

What we’d really need would be a “read/write named-register” operation
(which could either be an ioctl or a new read/write operation that takes a
selector that can then internally be mapped onto an actual address).
However, this would require a custom syscon for each chip (or at least a
per-chip driver-data), which also doesn’t sound like a desirable design.

Thanks,
Philipp.