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>:
> 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.
yes, I agree your opinion, If we define it is easy to solve.
I will send new patch for it today.
Thanks.
>
> A
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-12 03:57    [W:0.118 / U:5.012 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site