On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> If you have a FS or partition table there, it does.
> If you don't, I agree ... that's a problem.
eMMC boot partitions are called mmcblkXbootY, and unless you have more
than one eMMC device on the system, they can be found either by looking
for /dev/mmcblk*boot* or by querying udev. The advantage of using udev
is you can discover the physical device behind it by looking at DEVPATH,
ID_PATH, etc, but you may not have that installed on an embedded device.
However, as I say, just looking for /dev/mmcblk*boot* is sufficient to
find the eMMC boot partitions where there is just one eMMC device
present (which seems to be the standard setup.)
> > I don't care the slightest what the numbering is, as long as it is
> > stable. On some hardware, with an unpatched kernel, the mmc device
> > numbering changes depending on whether or not an SD card is inserted on
> > boot. Getting rid of that behaviour is really all I want.
>
> Agreed, that would be an improvement.
The mmc device numbering was tied to the mmc host numbering a while back
and the order that the hosts are probed should be completely independent
of whether a card is inserted or not:
snprintf(md->disk->disk_name, sizeof(md->disk->disk_name),
"mmcblk%u%s", card->host->index, subname ? subname : "");
snprintf(rpmb_name, sizeof(rpmb_name),
"mmcblk%u%s", card->host->index, subname ? subname : "");
I suspect that Mans is quoting something from the dim and distant past
to confuse the issue - as shown above, it is now dependent on the host
numbering order not the order in which cards are inserted.
--
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
