Re: iMX ddrphy_utils difference with U-boot
Ahmad Fatoum <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.infradead.lists.barebox |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, On 6/15/26 10:49 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On 2026-06-08 19:26, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> Hello Andrei, >> >> On 6/8/26 16:24, Andrei Lalaev wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I am moving an iMX8MP module from vendor U-Boot 2024.04 to Barebox 2025.02 >> >> Sidenote: You'll probably want to use one of the still supported >> v2026.04 or v2026.06 releases. >> >>> and found a strange difference in the DDR training code: >>> >>> vim drivers/ddr/imx/ddrphy_utils.c +94 >>> >>> And the corresponding line in U-Boot: >>> >>> vim drivers/ddr/imx/phy/ddrphy_utils.c +101 >>> >>> Is there any chance that somebody knows/remembers why "return -1" was replaced with "hang()"? >> >> I can't speak for Sascha, but having looked at the code, I see no reason >> why not to propagate the error. >> >>> I couldn't find any explanation in the commits/mailing lists. >> >> My guess is that it wasn't anticipated that boards would handle >> the error gracefully to fall back to a different DDR init. > > That's my guess as well. Note the callers of > imx8m_wait_ddrphy_training_complete() which is only a wrapper around > calling wait_ddrphy_training_complete() do not check the error code, so > when changing it back to return an error code we likely want to add > error checking where missing. I just stumbled upon this patch: https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ If we start allowing ddr_cfg_phy to propagate this error, you'll likely want above patch as well. Cheers, Ahmad > > Sascha > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |