From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joel Johnson Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 01:08:03 -0600 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm: mvebu: clearfog: add SCSI to distro bootcmd In-Reply-To: <5dff7af1-dfac-11de-8677-9a5a3bc28a0c@denx.de> References: <20200129035945.37765-1-mrjoel@lixil.net> <36191edd-4c1b-6e20-6403-ccd5e29c7680@denx.de> <5dff7af1-dfac-11de-8677-9a5a3bc28a0c@denx.de> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 2020-04-16 00:13, Stefan Roese wrote: > On 16.04.20 06:09, Joel Johnson wrote: >> On 2020-03-23 04:20, Stefan Roese wrote: >>> Added Josua to Cc. >>> >>> On 29.01.20 04:59, Joel Johnson wrote: >>>> Include attempting to boot from SCSI (SATA) devices within generated >>>> board distro bootcmd environment. The reasoning for boot ordering is >>>> that MMC and USB are external and removable, while when a case is in >>>> use, replacing M.2 or mSATA drives requires disassembly. Therefore, >>>> to boot SCSI, [bootable] external media must be removed. If SCSI >>>> were >>>> placed before MMC or USB, then removing a bootable SCSI drive to >>>> enable MMC or USB booting would be more difficult. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Johnson >>> >>> Josua posted a similar patch (different order though): >>> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1239539/ >>> >>> I tend to pull your patch though in the next merge window, if nobody >>> objects. So: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Stefan Roese >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Stefan >> >> I just wanted to send a bump on this series. With the first pull >> request of the merge window you merged Josua's patch. I'd still >> advocate for my original reasoning on the boot order priority, but in >> either case the second patch in this series is unique and >> non-conflicting since it adds support for the additional SCSI buses >> depending on configuration. >> >> Josua - any objection to moving USB boot before SCSI in the priority >> order? >> >> I'll rebase the series on current master since it will conflict, but >> wanted to try to get consensus on the approach before doing so. > > Okay from me for this. > > Thanks, > Stefan Looking again it looks like *both* were merged and resulted in some duplication, I just sent a related simple patch to correct. Joel