[bug#51663] [PATCH] gnu: u-boot: Fix rk3399 boot from emmc.

[Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2418 bytes --]


Pierre Langlois <pierre.langlois@gmx.com> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> 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.

Taking another quick look today, it seems Fedora now picked up this
patch, yey!
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/uboot-tools/c/9eb973e7d2ab74341c0eb7312576b6f016ec03d4?branch=rawhide

I'm more confident it's the right fix now so I've gone ahead and pushed
it.

Thanks!
Pierre

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 519 bytes --]