[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#51663] [PATCH] gnu: u-boot: Fix rk3399 boot from emmc.
From: |
Pierre Langlois |
Subject: |
[bug#51663] [PATCH] gnu: u-boot: Fix rk3399 boot from emmc. |
Date: |
Sat, 13 Nov 2021 13:35:09 +0000 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.6.9; emacs 27.2 |
Hi,
Vagrant Cascadian <vagrant@debian.org> writes:
> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 2021-11-07, Pierre Langlois wrote:
>> I'm afraid the last u-boot update broke booting the rockpro64 and
>> pinebook-pro from the eMMC card :-/. Going through the u-boot ML, I saw
>> that it was reported [0], and this fix [1] should be applied.
>>
>> So here's a patch! I tested it on on both the pinebook-pro and
>> rockpro64.
>>
>> OK to apply?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pierre
>>
>> [0]: https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2021-November/466329.html
>> [1]:
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20211101044347.17822-1-yifeng.zhao@rock-chips.com/
> ...
>> diff --git a/gnu/packages/patches/u-boot-rk3399-enable-emmc-phy.patch
>> b/gnu/packages/patches/u-boot-rk3399-enable-emmc-phy.patch
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000..f14a9ce104
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gnu/packages/patches/u-boot-rk3399-enable-emmc-phy.patch
>> @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
>> +adapting commit ac804143cf ("mmc: rockchip_sdhci: add phy and clock
>> +config for rk3399") to fix the issue "Not found emmc phy device".
>
> I'm a little confused about this comment in the patch... is ac804143cf
> the commit which fixed the issue or broke it? is there a reference to an
> upstream commit and/or issue that fixes it?
Yeah it's not very clear to me either, I think ac804143cf is the commit
that introduced the regression indeed. Doing a bit of digging, I don't
think the fix was merged upstream yet though :-(.
Instead, I see Fedora opted to revert the problematic patch, along with
another dependent one. Probably before the fix was posted to the list:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uboot-tools/c/37df227bc0961f9f0dc4dafa9e983290dbdb2bc3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2014182#c3
Given it's not upstream, it could be safer to do what Fedora did and
revert a couple of patches, what do you think? The fix is from the
original author so I'm inclined to trust it, I'd be surprised if it
doesn't get merged.
Thanks,
Pierre
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature