rk3399 boards broken, only partially converted to standard boot? (was Re: [PATCH 71/71] rockchip: Convert rockpro64-rk3399 to use standard boot)
sjg at chromium.org
Tue Feb 21 20:35:35 CET 2023
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 09:21, Simon Glass <sjg at chromium.org> wrote:
> Hi Vagrant,
> On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 at 19:19, Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant at debian.org> wrote:
> > On 2022-12-07, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > Drop the use of scripts and rely on standard boot for all operation.
> > This patch, applied as 3891c68ef50eda38d78c95ecd03aed030aa6bb53 broke
> > booting on pinebook-pro-rk3399, which still tries to "run
> > distro_bootcmd" but distro_bootcmd is no longer defined... probably
> > several other rk3399 systems are similarly affected? Maybe other
> > rockchip systems as well? Reverting the patch fixes booting on the
> > pinebook-pro-rk3399, at least.
> > It seems that rockpro64-rk3399 was used as an example, so that
> > presumably works, but in actuality, this commit only modifies common
> > files for many rockchip and rk3399 boards and nothing rockpro64-rk3399
> > specific, so the commit message is a bit misleading.
> > I am not sure what the best way forward is; to quickly convert all the
> > other boards in a new patch series, or incrementally shift one system at
> > a time over (and somehow restore previous behavior in the
> > meantime?)... as it stands it appears we are left with rk3399 boards
> > partially converted but broken...
> > FWIW, I have not confirmed for sure that other boards are broken, so it
> > might just be pinebook-pro-rk3399 for some reason. I have a few rk3399
> > based boards I can test to confirm...
> I suspect it needs BOOTSTD_DEFAULTS enabled. Could you try that? I can
> send a patch if you like?
> See also this series, in case we should apply patch 1 to -master
It turns out to be boostage, as the IRAM seems to get protected. I'll
send a little series for all of this.
More information about the U-Boot