spl: MMC U-Boot image load from raw partition

CONFIG_SYS_MMC_SD_FS_BOOT_PARTITION ought to be called CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_FS_BOOT_PARTITION to keep it consistent with other config options such as: CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR.

In addition, it is not related to raw mode booting but to fs mode instead.

Signed-off-by Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]>

CONFIG_SYS_MMC_SD_FS_BOOT_PARTITION ought to be called CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_FS_BOOT_PARTITION to keep it consistent with other config options such as: CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR.

In addition, it is not related to raw mode booting but to fs mode instead.

Signed-off-by Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Tom Rini <[email protected]>

Raw images of U-Boot can be stored inside MMC partitions, so it makes sense to read the partition table, looking for a partition number instead of using a fixed sector address.

Signed-off-by Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]>

Raw images of U-Boot can be stored inside MMC partitions, so it makes sense to read the partition table, looking for a partition number instead of using a fixed sector address.

Signed-off-by Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]>

Reviewed-by Tom Rini <[email protected]>

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

On the Optimus Black, the second stage bootloader (U-Boot in our case) is stored on the second partition of the internal EMMC. This patch allows reading from that partition without the need of providing the U-Boot config with a sector address, but with the partition address.

It makes sense as there is already code to read partition tables, so it would be a shame to hardcode the sector address while it can be obtained dynamically.

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot at lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

Quoted 8 lines

On the Optimus Black, the second stage bootloader (U-Boot in our case) is stored on the second partition of the internal EMMC. This patch allows reading from that partition without the need of providing the U-Boot config with a sector address, but with the partition address.

It makes sense as there is already code to read partition tables, so it would be a shame to hardcode the sector address while it can be obtained dynamically.

Quoted 4 lines

_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot at lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

Amicalement,

Le samedi 08 novembre 2014 ? 23:19 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD a ?crit :

Quoted 8 lines

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

The honest answer here is that I don't think I'll have time to handle having the patches reviewed all at once and that I prefer to do things step by step, week after week (work on the next thing when the previous piece is ready or nearly so). Things are independent enough for this to work.

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

Quoted 8 lines · Albert ARIBAUD

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

So to me the "dead code" thing is starting to get a lot more ambiguous since with Kconfig we'll need need every single possible choice enabled in some defconfig, just some way to turn it on, on a possibly relevant board. In this case, any OMAP3+ board would be a fine place to try this out, IFF it's done as a Kconfig choice.

Tom

Hello Tom,

Quoted 17 lines · Tom Rini

Quoted 8 lines · Albert ARIBAUD

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

Quoted 5 lines

So to me the "dead code" thing is starting to get a lot more ambiguous since with Kconfig we'll need need every single possible choice enabled in some defconfig, just some way to turn it on, on a possibly relevant board. In this case, any OMAP3+ board would be a fine place to try this out, IFF it's done as a Kconfig choice.

Not sure I'm understanding you right, but it seems to me we're in sync:
as long as the code is enabled somewhere on some target, it is not dead code. I'm precisely asking that the code here be submitted along with the target that uses it. Or did I miss something?

Le jeudi 13 novembre 2014 ? 12:16 +0100, Albert ARIBAUD a ?crit :

Quoted 26 lines

Hello Tom,

Quoted 22 lines · Tom Rini

Quoted 8 lines · Albert ARIBAUD

Hello Paul,

Quoted 4 lines · Paul Kocialkowski

This is a first attempt at adding support for U-Boot image load from raw partitions. It does not support OS boot as I cannot test it on my current setup.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines

This is going to be useful for the Optimus Black port (please do not consider this as dead code because no board is using it right now, there will be one soon)!

Well... Why don't you just post these two patches a little later, as part of the upcoming series which will add support for the Optimus Black?

So to me the "dead code" thing is starting to get a lot more ambiguous since with Kconfig we'll need need every single possible choice enabled in some defconfig, just some way to turn it on, on a possibly relevant board. In this case, any OMAP3+ board would be a fine place to try this out, IFF it's done as a Kconfig choice.

Quoted 4 lines

Not sure I'm understanding you right, but it seems to me we're in sync:
as long as the code is enabled somewhere on some target, it is not dead code. I'm precisely asking that the code here be submitted along with the target that uses it. Or did I miss something?

Well I think it makes sense to not call this dead code as long as it *can be* enabled and used on another supported board (for that matter, any OMAP3+ board will indeed do).

This is very different from e.g. the regulator code that I submitted, which is only relevant for devices with that particular piece of hardware (so far, none supported by U-Boot). So it makes sense to submit that regulator patch only along with support for a board that uses it.

Paul Kocialkowski, Replicant developer

Replicant is a fully free Android distribution

Website: http://www.replicant.us/
Blog: http://blog.replicant.us/
Wiki/tracker/forums: http://redmine.replicant.us/

Hello Paul,

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:16:09 +0100, Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted 3 lines

Well I think it makes sense to not call this dead code as long as it *can be* enabled and used on another supported board (for that matter, any OMAP3+ board will indeed do).

If no board is calling this code right now, that is because none needs it. If none needs it, then it has no reason to be added. The day some board needs this code, the patch to add this code can be submitted along with the patch that calls this code.

Quoted 4 lines

This is very different from e.g. the regulator code that I submitted, which is only relevant for devices with that particular piece of hardware (so far, none supported by U-Boot). So it makes sense to submit that regulator patch only along with support for a board that uses it.

I don't see the difference.

Quoted 4 lines · Albert ARIBAUD

Hello Paul,

On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:16:09 +0100, Paul Kocialkowski <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted 9 lines

Quoted 3 lines

Well I think it makes sense to not call this dead code as long as it *can be* enabled and used on another supported board (for that matter, any OMAP3+ board will indeed do).

If no board is calling this code right now, that is because none needs it. If none needs it, then it has no reason to be added. The day some board needs this code, the patch to add this code can be submitted along with the patch that calls this code.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines

This is very different from e.g. the regulator code that I submitted, which is only relevant for devices with that particular piece of hardware (so far, none supported by U-Boot). So it makes sense to submit that regulator patch only along with support for a board that uses it.

I don't see the difference.

But this is where I see a difference, "tomorrow". Setting this, or not setting this new behavior is a Kconfig "choice" (in Kconfig-speak). We do not need a defconfig in-tree for every single possible choice since at some point we'll do like other Kconfig-based projects and have randconfig builds possible to cover "odd" choices, along with allyesconfig and allnoconfig to cover the things which people clearly need _somewhere_ (and feel the (good!) need to post them in public to help others) but may not be able to post the whole board port (not the case here per-se but see the various RTC drivers that get posted from time to time).

Signature · 1 line

Tom