[U-Boot] RK3399/RK3288 same-as-spl Option

[Wadim Egorov]

Hi Philipp,

Am 30.01.19 um 13:56 schrieb Philipp Tomsich:
> Wadim,
>
>> On 30.01.2019, at 13:50, Wadim Egorov <w.egorov at phytec.de
>> <mailto:w.egorov at phytec.de>> wrote:
>>
>> I want to know if there is a reason why the same-as-spl boot order
>> option [1] was not added for the RK3288. Do the chromebooks or other
>> RK3288 based boards don't want/need this option?
>>
> For starters I don’t have a RK3288-based board or a Chromebook.
> The code was designed to be generic enough to easily retarget to new
> boards.
>
> It’s good to see that it’s not just our modules that face the
> challenge of requiring a configurable boot-order ;-)

Yes, this popped up again for me after the "eMMC/sd index distro boot
order" discussion.


>> It seems the RK3288 has the same Register that marks the boot source
>> device:
>>   RK3399_BROM_BOOTSOURCE_ID_ADDR: 0xff8c0010
>>   For RK3288 it is 0xff700010. I know it is not documented in the
>> TRM. But it works.
>>
> I had asked Kever for the address (back in the day), as it was not
> documented neither for the RK3368 nor for the RK3399.
>>
>> Any opinions in reworking the RK3288 code to use this Register for
>> "same-as-spl" boot?
>>
> There’s a task in my to-do list to move most of the configuration in
> the GRF (e.g. selecting RGMII vs. GMII) to an ioctl-based scheme.
> This resulted as the “best available choice” from a prior discussion
> between me an Simon.
>
> If you want to tackle this, I would advise a DM-based solution for
> interfacing with our BootROM.

Thanks, I will keep this in mind. Right know it is not that important
for us. And I just wanted to know why nobody else had the idea to use
the same-as-spl process before. Maybe because this Register was not
known for a long time.

Regards,
Wadim

>
> Thanks,
> Philipp.,