On Wed 2014-08-27 12:11:55, Jaehoon Chung wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/26/2014 07:19 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > Hi! > > > >>>> Would you elaborate? > >>>> > >>>> If I have a device like a phone, I may want to put one "slot" inside > >>>> phone for basic system, and offer second slot for user expansion > >>>> (initially empty). > >>> > >>> if multiple slot is supported, then a mmcqd should be processing for multiple slots. > >>> It's too inefficient, and affect the whole performance reduction. > >> Sorry, Discard this comment. it means dwmci, not mmcqd. > > > > Well, that's a Linux problem, and for many applications, not even > > problem at all. > > > > Device tree should describe hardware, and hardware can do multiple > > slots per controller, so device tree should describe multiple slots > > per controller. > > > > Now, the configuration may be uncommon, but you are moving from good > > hardware description to bad hardware description. > > Well, i don't think it's bad hardware description. And this policy is suggested by other mmc developers and maintainers. > At first time, I had also suggested same opinion with yours. > Refer to below.. Well, I disagree with them. They want to modify device tree because of linux limitations. Plus. I guess that sooner or later someone will wire just the slot 1 (not 0) and not match this description. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
