Hi, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chris Ball" > <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > 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@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. > > 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. 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
