Re: iMX ddrphy_utils difference with U-boot

["Sascha Hauer" <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>]

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.

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 |