Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Patches to allow consistent mmc / mmcblk numbering w/ device tree

Doug Anderson
2016-04-29T21:39:35Z

Russell,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> No, because you haven't taken the time to think and consider my
> reply, which gives you insight into how your "problem" is no
> different from the situation that everyone else has, where it
> isn't a problem.

I have certainly considered it.

> I think the "problem" here is that you've got used to coreboot
> doing something that very few other boot loaders do, namely it
> automatically extracting a rootfs UUID for you. The rest of the
> world doesn't have that luxury.

Earlier in this thread Rob nicely proposed a solution to my TFTP. I
agreed that was a nice solution. I can certainly use it. Certainly
there are many places where UUIDs are awesome. ...but that's still no
reason to assign a random number when a sane and logical numbering
system exists for MMC parts on a given SoC.

> So, instead, you want to stuff more code into the kernel to work
> around what you think is a problem - a problem which seems to be
> unique to yourself.

Not so much. I think many people have expressed interest in something
like this. It seems unlikely to be unique.

> The UUID and label solutions were created by x86 people to work
> around exactly this dynamic device problem, and as my previous
> replies have shown, it is superior to fixing the device assignment
> as you're trying to do.

Sure. They don't have the luxury of having a simple and consistent
numbering so they're forced to use UUIDs for booting and have the
extra mental work of mapping IDs to physical hardware. ...so they're
forced to use UUIDs.

> However, I don't expect that you'll like this answer, and you'll
> probably just re-post your same question after each and every
> paragraph rather than considering whether the already existing
> solutions could solve your "problem". So I'm just wasting my time.

Really I just reposted it several times because I notice that you seem
to ignore many points of my emails. I was really hoping to get you to
address this point. I notice that you still didn't. Either you are
just trying to annoy me, or you don't have an answer to how my patch
series hurts you.

> This is my last reply.

Excellent. I look forward to your silence.

-Doug