From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roger Pau =?utf-8?B?TW9ubsOp?= <royger@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2021 16:37:38 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] odroid-go2: remove setting
 SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR
In-Reply-To: <YDN2Mw8YhJoUWPw/@Air-de-Roger>
References: <20210213155901.10247-1-royger@FreeBSD.org>
 <5600009.N7aMVyhfb1@diego> <20210217022125.GX10169@bill-the-cat>
 <7479695.6fTUFtlzNn@diego> <YDN2Mw8YhJoUWPw/@Air-de-Roger>
Message-ID: <YEOhwghBYRsHzAVZ@Air-de-Roger>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Ping?

On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:15:34AM +0100, Roger Pau Monn? wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 02:08:55PM +0100, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > Am Mittwoch, 17. Februar 2021, 03:21:25 CET schrieb Tom Rini:
> > > I would say that yes, it's quite intentional that all boards for a given
> > > SoC (or SoC family) would use the same value for
> > > SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR and NOT leave it up to be per-board.
> > > It should be a matter of kilobytes being potentially wasted which is
> > > (often or most likely) worth sacrificing in the name of consistency and
> > > ease of future use / development.  In other cases this ends up being
> > > something around "ROM will only load something of $X size, round that up
> > > a little bit, place U-Boot there, as it's the next thing to load".
> > 
> > Ok ... then I'guess I'll not stand in the way ;-) .
> > 
> > Though we're in the megabyte range with
> > CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR being 0x4000 * 512 .
> > But I guess with current emmc sizes that might not matter too much.
> > 
> > But should there be some sort of warning when the
> > CONFIG_SYS_MMCSD_RAW_MODE_U_BOOT_SECTOR doesn't match the expected
> > value? Because for example rk3399-puma and rk3368-lion historical use that
> > 0x200 instead of 0x4000 block offset and I think at least their default
> > firmware also expects u-boot to not reach that far into the emmc.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> It's not clear to me whether there's anything else expected from my side
> to get this accepted. Could you please clarify if the current patch is
> OK, or if it needs any changes?
> 
> Thanks, Roger.