[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 0/7] arm: socfpga: update default u-boot environment

[Dalon Westergreen <dwesterg@gmail.com>]

On Fri, 2017-01-27 at 03:11 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 01/26/2017 11:33 PM, Dalon Westergreen wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 22:41 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 01/26/2017 10:05 PM, Dalon Westergreen wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Thu, 2017-01-26 at 21:54 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 01/26/2017 09:31 PM, Dalon Westergreen wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Dalon Westergreen <dalon.westergreen@intel.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > These patches update the boot and os partition numbers in
> > > > > > the???????????????????
> > > > > > default uboot environment for a number of socfpga
> > > > > > boards.??Per??????????????????
> > > > > > request, common environment configurations have been moved to
> > > > > > a?????????????????
> > > > > > shared
> > > > > > header.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
> > > > > > ????
> > > > > > ?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Changed in v7:
> > > > > > ? Changed the bootloader partition to 3 to match the default layout
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > ? socfpga.??commit 61520ac4d5545cc8d2e1792092e46ab8043d5f36 changed
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > 1
> > > > > > ? which broke a number of socfpga kits.
> > > > > 
> > > > > And this commit will break another bulk of kits, great ...
> > > > I think the only kit that MAY be affected is the DE1 kit and I
> > > > actually dont even think that is true b/c they are probably
> > > > using the method described in the former thread where they just?
> > > > write the u-boot-with-spl.sfp to +64KB.??
> > > > CONFIG_SPL_ABORT_ON_RAW_IMAGE is defined for the board.
> > > 
> > > And all the kits which used the environment in mainline U-Boot.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > If i had a board I would test it.??But that said, this is currently?
> > > > how all of the altera kits, and the de0 kit work.
> > > 
> > > I'd be happy to take the previous patchset without this new "windows
> > > compatibility"/"ancient u-boot compatibility" crap and then proceed
> > > with a discussion on this new topic.
> > > 
> > > But now that it came up, well, I guess I'll wait for Dinh to make the
> > > decision, since we clearly have totally different opinions.
> > > 
> > Thanks.??I am open to any suggestions, i could just wrap the?
> > boot partition number in socfpga_common with an ifndef? and define?
> > it as partition 3 in the altera boards which currently use that setup?
> 
> Uh no, let's not add more ifdefs.
> 
> > 
> > another option would be to re-implement the method used in the older
> > 2013.01.01 uboot used by socfpga which, rather than using a partition
> > number specifically looked for a partition of type 0xa2 making the
> > partition number irrelevant?
> 
> Either that or load u-boot.img from FS (even better). Do you have an
> example patch for the first approach ? How intrusive is it ?
I am working on it as we speak. ?I like that approach, i am thinking
searching for the a2 partition is a failover in?spl_mmc_load_image
after?mmc_load_image_raw_sector. ?i can test it, and send a patch
for you to decide if it is too invasive?

>