lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
From
2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@vmware.com>:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
>> To: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>, "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@vmware.com>
>> Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris Ball"
>> <cjb@laptop.org>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:20:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
>>
>> Hi Randy, Andrei.
>>
>> I suggest third option for this.
>> As you know, MMC like ATA Driver and SCSI Driver etc.. can not enable
>> without CONFIG_BLOCK
>> So I think that mmc should be depended from CONFIG_BLOCK like other
>> block device driver.
>> see the their Kconfig. How do you think ?
>
> MMC core doesn't not imply MMC_BLOCK. You could well use SDIO devices via MMC without any flash storage whatsoever.
> What I want to say is that MMC_BLOCK already depends on BLOCK. MMC, however, has no such functional dependence, as it
> just (effectively) provides bus and device enumeration. So I think the better solution is wrapping all MMC partition
> code within mmc/core/mmc.c and card.h with CONFIG_BLOCK.
yes, you're right, I found it after sending mail. If so, should I wrap
CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK instead of CONFIG_MMC ? After I add CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK
in core/mmc.c, card.h, I can see compile is okay.
Thanks.
>
> A
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-12 02:19    [W:0.086 / U:6.764 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site