On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:18 PM, Tomas Winkler <tomasw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That's correct, I guess someone didn't read the spec till the end when
> adding rpmb block device.
> though also looks like that the software guys where drinking up in the
> bar while jdec committee has met.
:D
>> +/* Device type for RPMB character devices */
>> +static dev_t rpmb_devt;
>
> This is mmc_rpmb device not 'rpmb' as there are other storage devices
> that provide RPMB partition.
OK fixed it.
>> +
>> +/* Bus type for RPMB character devices */
>> +static struct bus_type rpmb_bus_type = {
>> + .name = "rpmb",
>> +};
>
> Same here, mmc_rpmb_... , and other place bellow.
OK fixed it.
>> +struct mmc_rpmb_data {
(...)
> would keep also partition access bit needed for the partition switching.
(...)
>> static int __mmc_blk_ioctl_cmd(struct mmc_card *card, struct mmc_blk_data *md,
>> - struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata)
>> + struct mmc_blk_ioc_data *idata, bool rpmb_ioctl)
> Don't remember now if this is for eMMC but in future there might be
> more then one RPMB partition on the device
> and boolean will not work here. rather use target_part, tho bits are
> exhausted there too.
(...)
>> - bool is_rpmb = false;
>> + unsigned int target_part;
> should come as a function input.
(...)
>> + ret = mmc_blk_alloc_rpmb_part(card, md,
>> + card->part[idx].size >> 9,
>> + card->part[idx].name);
> Extract partition access bits form card->part[idx].part_cfg,
OK I am trying my best with this too...
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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
