2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chris Ball" >> <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> 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. > > A > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
