Hi Marcin,
On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 07:11:09PM +0100, Marcin Niestrój wrote:
> >> +bbu_register:
> >> + imx6_bbu_internal_mmc_register_handler("emmc", "/dev/mmc1.barebox",
> >> + emmc_flag);
> >> + imx6_bbu_internal_mmcboot_register_handler("emmc-boot", "mmc1",
> >> + emmc_boot_flag);
> >> +}
> >
> > I'm not sure if the way you switch the default handler to the current
> > bootsource might not be a bit confusing. For example if you start from
> > eMMC user partition and execute the mmcboot handler once then the
> > default will change from user partition to boot next time.
>
> I am not sure what introduces more confusion here: choosing default
> handler based on eMMC boot configuration or implicitly switching to eMMC
> boot partitions when running mmcboot handler (even if they were disabled
> before running that handler). I think it is the latter.
>
> Maybe we should only switch between boot0 <-> boot1 partitions, but do
> not change eMMC boot configuration when none of boo0 and boot1 were
> configured? I looks logical that `barebox_update ...` command should
> only update bootloader on specified target, no implicit boot source
> changes.
>
> > Also if you think of the SD slot as a temporary boot source to recover
> > the eMMC bootloader then you might want to keep the default boot slot
> > as eMMC even if you are booting from SD currently.
>
> If eMMC has valid bootloader (at least valid header with DCD for NXP
> processors), then SD card will not be booted without changing boot
> configuration on dip switch.
>
> In case of no valid bootloader on eMMC processor will actually try to
> boot from SD card, but this is due the fact that SD card is on esdhc0
> interface on this board, which is tried when configured boot source did
> not work.
>
> >
> > I'll merge it as is if you think it's fine, but otherwise I suggest to
> > keep the default as eMMC boot partition. Maybe the others are not even
> > needed at all.
>
> I've looked at other boards and there is no consistency across them, i.e
> some boards set always the same handler as default, some choose default
> handler based on bootsource.
Indeed, unfortunately there is no consistency.
>
> > Less choices make it easier for the user to pick the right one ;)
>
> But at the same time on development boards we also want to give users
> options they can easily test, before designing their own solution :)
As said, these were only suggestions, I'm fine with either way.
> > You should check for index out of bounds before using boot_source_idx as
> > an array index, even when you know you only have 0 and 1 as boot
> > sources.
>
> Okay, I will fix that in v3.
I'll wait for v3 then.
Sascha
--
Pengutronix e.K. | |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
