Hi, ----- Original Message ----- > From: "NamJae Jeon" <[email protected]> > To: "Andrei Warkentin" <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected], "LKML" <[email protected]>, > [email protected], "Chris Ball" > <[email protected]>, "Stephen Rothwell" <[email protected]>, "Randy Dunlap" > <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "NamJae Jeon" <[email protected]> > >> To: "Randy Dunlap" <[email protected]>, "Andrei Warkentin" > >> <[email protected]> > >> Cc: [email protected], "LKML" > >> <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Chris > >> Ball" > >> <[email protected]>, "Stephen Rothwell" <[email protected]> > >> 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-mmc" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
