[U-Boot] mx6cuboxi fails to load u-boot.img
Adam Ford
aford173 at gmail.com
Sun Oct 6 12:05:08 UTC 2019
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 6:30 AM Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 5:23 AM Baruch Siach <baruch at tkos.co.il> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Adam,
> >
> > (Adding MMC and i.MX maintainers to Cc)
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27 2019, Adam Ford wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 4:38 AM Jonathan Gray <jsg at jsg.id.au> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 05:07:21PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > >> > Hi Vagrant,
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 4:16 PM Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant at debian.org> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I just tested mx6cuboxi with 2019.10-rc4, and it fails to load
> > >> > > u-boot.img from MMC:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > 1 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63089 U-Boot SPL 2019.10-rc4+dfsg-1 (Sep 24 2019 -
> > >> > > 08:03:23 +0000)
> > >> > > 2 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63092 Trying to boot from MMC2
> > >> > > 3 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63095 MMC Device 1 not found
> > >> > > 4 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63097 spl: could not find mmc device 1. error: -19
> > >> > > 5 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63099 SPL: failed to boot from all boot devices
> > >> > > 6 2019-09-26_17:31:27.63101 ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ###
> > >> >
> > >> > Thanks for reporting this issue.
> > >> >
> > >> > Unfortunately, I don't have access to my Cuboxi, so I am adding Jon
> > >> > and Baruch on Cc.
> > >>
> > >> Works after reverting the following commit.
> > >>
> > > I am going to argue that making the board comply with DM_MMC is why I
> > > needed to make the patch, because when booting from MMC2, the function
> > > was returning MMC1 which was clearly not the boot source.
> > >
> > > If the boards that fail accept MMC2 as a response when booting from
> > > MMC2, that seems like a bug on the indvidual boards. Instead they
> > > should setup their boot sequence to configure MMC2 when MMC2 is the
> > > boot source. Instead, it seems like some boards are configuring MMC1
> > > with MMC2 info which only prolongs the conversion to DM_MMC.
> > >
> > > If we revert the patch, then boards like imx6_logic who rely solely on
> > > device tree and DM_MMC for booting will have to manually override the
> > > MMC driver in order to boot from MMC2, and that seems like a step
> > > backwards. I would argue that this board should migrate to DM_MMC and
> > > use the device tree to boot, and the problem should go away.
> >
> > I started working on migration to DM_MMC as you suggested. Unfortunately
> > I can't see how this solves the problem for Cubox-i/Hummingboard, nor in
> > the general case.
> >
> > The imx6_logic board happens to use only usdhc1 and usdhc2 for boot, and
> > both are always enabled. This matches perfectly to BOOT_DEVICE_MMC{1,2},
> > and their corresponding DT representation.
> >
> > However, the 'index' parameter in uclass_get_device() that is set
> > according to BOOT_DEVICE_MMC{1,2} selection has nothing to do with the
> > usdhcX sequence number. It simply returns the Nth probed SD/eMMC device
> > (see uclass_find_device()). In the case of Cubox-i/Hummingboard, usdhc1
> > is never used for boot, usdhc2 is always an SD card, and usdhc3 is an
> > optional eMMC. When booting from SD card, uclass_get_device(), returns
> > -ENODEV when eMMC is not available, or the eMMC device when it is
> > available. In both cases, boot fails.
> >
> > In addition, your patch returns BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2 only for usdhc2
> > boot. All others return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1. What about usdhc{3,4}?
> >
>
> My patch only extended it to support MMC1 or MMC2. I don't have
> hardware to test MMC3 or MMC4, nor where they defined in the boot
> table.
> The intention what to eliminate all functions from board files which
> did a something like:
>
> static int mmc_init_spl(bd_t *bis)
> {
> struct src *psrc = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR;
> unsigned reg = readl(&psrc->sbmr1) >> 11;
>
> /*
> * Upon reading BOOT_CFG register the following map is done:
> * Bit 11 and 12 of BOOT_CFG register can determine the current
> * mmc port
> * 0x1 SD2
> * 0x2 SD3
> */
> switch (reg & 0x3) {
> ...
> }
> }
>
> > How is all that intended to work?
>
> Basically the above function determines which BOOT_CFG regiser is used
> and returns sets MMC1 values to the returned value. In my case MMC1
> was going to be configured with the clock and pin mux of mmc1 or 2.
> In your case, mmc1 gets configured with the information for mmc2 or 3.
> Since it appears that arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c is supposed to be able
> to return the correct boot source, my goal was to make that function
> actually return that which could eliminate the above function on all
> boards. Unfortunately, I don't have hardware with MMC3 or MMC4, so I
> couldn't test it and therefore didn't write it into the code. It was
> my hope that someone with MMC3 or MMC4 would be able to easily expand
> it in the hope to better facilitate support for DM_MMC and device tree
> in SPL.
>
> >
> > Aren't other i.MX boards impacted by this commit?
>
> Yes and no. If they only support MMC1 or MMC2 and have DM_MMC with
> device tree support, the theory is that mmc_init_spl(bd_t *bis)
> function can be completely eliminated. People with MMC3 and MMC4 as
> boot sources are quite possibly impacted, but like I said before, I
> was trying to lay the foundation for people to migrate into a
> direction to eliminate individual functions and share common files
> more easily.
>
> You can try this:
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h
> index e568af2561..e94a295eda 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/spl.h
> @@ -18,6 +18,8 @@ enum {
> BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1,
> BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2,
> BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2_2,
> + BOOT_DEVICE_MMC3,
> + BOOT_DEVICE_MMC4,
> BOOT_DEVICE_NAND,
> BOOT_DEVICE_ONENAND,
> BOOT_DEVICE_NOR,
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c
> index 1f230aca33..bf72d03eee 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c
> @@ -87,7 +87,11 @@ u32 spl_boot_device(void)
> case IMX6_BMODE_ESD:
> case IMX6_BMODE_MMC:
> case IMX6_BMODE_EMMC:
> - if (mmc_index == 1)
> + if (mmc_index == 3)
> + return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC4;
> + else if (mmc_index == 2)
> + return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC3;
> + else if (mmc_index == 1)
> return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC2;
> else
> return BOOT_DEVICE_MMC1;
>
>
> It's only compile-only tested.
>
> I am hoping someone from NXP or the MMC maintainer might having some
> thoughts on what might be missing (if anything)
>
> adam
> >
I should also note that people who are only booting from MMC1 or MMC2
should be able to do something like was done here:
https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1104361/
Eventually, if boards can fit the pinmux stuff into SPL, that
function modified in the above patch should be able to go away.
adam
> > Thanks,
> > baruch
> >
> > >> 14d319b1856b86e593e01abd0a1e3c2d63b52a8a is the first bad commit
> > >> commit 14d319b1856b86e593e01abd0a1e3c2d63b52a8a
> > >> Author: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
> > >> Date: Thu May 23 14:11:30 2019 -0500
> > >>
> > >> spl: imx6: Let spl_boot_device return USDHC1 or USDHC2
> > >>
> > >> Currently, when the spl_boot_device checks the boot device, it
> > >> will only return MMC1 when it's either sd or eMMC regardless
> > >> of whether or not it's MMC1 or MMC2. This is a problem when
> > >> booting from MMC2 if MMC isn't being manually configured like in
> > >> the DM_SPL case with SPL_OF_CONTROL.
> > >>
> > >> This patch will check the register and return either MMC1 or MMC2.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <aford173 at gmail.com>
> > >>
> > >> arch/arm/mach-imx/spl.c | 8 +++++---
> > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > http://baruch.siach.name/blog/ ~. .~ Tk Open Systems
> > =}------------------------------------------------ooO--U--Ooo------------{=
> > - baruch at tkos.co.il - tel: +972.52.368.4656, http://www.tkos.co.il -
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list