2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx>: > 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. yes, I agree your opinion, If we define it is easy to solve. I will send new patch for it today. 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
