lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
    Hi Randy,

    ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
    > To: "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
    > Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris Ball"
    > <cjb@laptop.org>
    > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 2:49:39 PM
    > Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc)
    >
    > On 10/11/11 02:11, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > The linux-next tree is now available from
    > > git://github.com/sfrothwell/linux-next.git as a temporary measure
    > > while
    > > the kernel.org servers are unavailable.
    > >
    > > It may also turn up on git.kernel.org (depending on the mirroring).
    > > The
    > > patch set is still absent, however.
    > >
    > > Changes since 20111007:
    >
    >
    > When CONFIG_BLOCK is not enabled:
    >
    > In file included from
    > next-2011-1011/drivers/mmc/card/sdio_uart.c:43:0:
    > next-2011-1011/include/linux/mmc/card.h:175:12: error:
    > 'DISK_NAME_LEN' undeclared here (not in a function)
    >
    > Deleting the #include <linux/mmc/card.h> fixes the sdio_uart.c build.
    > However, the same problem occurs in mmc/core/core.c:
    >

    Because linux/genhd is now included, oops. I'm pretty positive this is due to the "mmc : general purpose partition support" patch pulled recently. I am adding NamJae, who was the author.

    > In file included from next-2011-1011/drivers/mmc/core/core.c:30:0:
    > next-2011-1011/include/linux/mmc/card.h:175:12: error:
    > 'DISK_NAME_LEN' undeclared here (not in a function)
    >
    > Should mmc/core/ depend on BLOCK? or should it just be made
    > to build even when BLOCK is not enabled?
    >

    I don't think there should be a direct dependency on BLOCK. I have two suggestions -
    1) Have our own define similar to (and in fact smaller):
    linux/genhd.h:#define DISK_NAME_LEN 32
    2) Put the MMC physical partition code under an #ifdef CONFIG_BLOCK, which is a reasonable
    proposition, given that there wouldn't be any need to parse physical partition info if
    it would never be consumed by the MMC block driver.

    Thoughts?

    A


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-10-11 21:35    [W:0.022 / U:32.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site