From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@vmware.com>
Subject: Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next:
 Tree for Oct 11 (mmc))
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:50:03 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1711499402.60485.1318380603125.JavaMail.root@zimbra-prod-mbox-2.vmware.com>
References: <CAKYAXd_MJy_3TAoM_buCmP5g3j1e=Vh5vZPJP9O_nxDrWiHsAw@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAKYAXd_MJy_3TAoM_buCmP5g3j1e=Vh5vZPJP9O_nxDrWiHsAw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: NamJae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, Chris Ball <cjb@laptop.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org

Hi,

----- Original Message -----
> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
> To: "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@vmware.com>
> Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris Ball"
> <cjb@laptop.org>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>, "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
> 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@vmware.com>:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
> >> To: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xenotime.net>, "Andrei Warkentin"
> >> <awarkentin@vmware.com>
> >> Cc: linux-next@vger.kernel.org, "LKML"
> >> <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, "Chris
> >> Ball"
> >> <cjb@laptop.org>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
> >> 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