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,

----- Original Message -----
> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
> To: "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>, "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:16:51 PM
> Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
>
> 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.
> >

I am not sure if it should be CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK or CONFIG_BLOCK. After all, the
code you're wrapping doesn't really depend on CONFIG_MMC_BLOCK, it gets consumed by it, and
it depends (in using that one define) only on CONFIG_BLOCK. Maybe I'm overthinking it
and the code should just define it's own MAX_MMC_PART_NAME to be like 10 or something.

A


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-12 02:53    [W:0.082 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site