From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752161Ab1JLBzL (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:55:11 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:56154 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750980Ab1JLBzK (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:55:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1711499402.60485.1318380603125.JavaMail.root@zimbra-prod-mbox-2.vmware.com> References: <1711499402.60485.1318380603125.JavaMail.root@zimbra-prod-mbox-2.vmware.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:55:08 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Tree for Oct 11 (mmc)) From: NamJae Jeon To: Andrei Warkentin Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Chris Ball , Stephen Rothwell , Randy Dunlap Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin : > Hi, > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "NamJae Jeon" >> To: "Andrei Warkentin" >> Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML" , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris Ball" >> , "Stephen Rothwell" , "Randy Dunlap" >> 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 : >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: "NamJae Jeon" >> >> To: "Randy Dunlap" , "Andrei Warkentin" >> >> >> >> Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML" >> >> , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris >> >> Ball" >> >> , "Stephen Rothwell" >> >> 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 >