[U-Boot] [PATCH 03/11] DM: add block controller core

[Pavel Herrmann <morpheus.ibis@gmail.com>]

On Friday 21 of September 2012 15:56:38 Marek Vasut wrote:
> Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> 
> > On Friday 21 of September 2012 14:51:33 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> > > 
> > > > On Thursday 20 of September 2012 22:05:36 Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > Dear Pavel Herrmann,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This core provides unified access to different block controllers
> > > > > > (SATA,
> > > > > > SCSI).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Description of the patch missing or is sub-par. You should work on
> > > > > this skill.
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Pavel Herrmann <morpheus.ibis@gmail.com>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  Makefile                   |   1 +
> > > > > >  drivers/blockctrl/Makefile |  42 ++++++
> > > > > >  drivers/blockctrl/core.c   | 349
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > include/dm/blockctrl.h
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  75 ++++++++++
> > > > > >  4 files changed, 467 insertions(+)
> > > > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/Makefile
> > > > > >  create mode 100644 drivers/blockctrl/core.c
> > > > > >  create mode 100644 include/dm/blockctrl.h
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> > > > > > index e43fd9d..4420484 100644
> > > > > > --- a/Makefile
> > > > > > +++ b/Makefile
> > > > > > @@ -304,6 +304,7 @@ LIBS-y += test/libtest.o
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >  LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += common/dm/libdm.o
> > > > > >  LIBS-$(CONFIG_DM) += drivers/demo/libdemo.o
> > > > > >  LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockdev/libblockdev.o
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +LIBS-${CONFIG_DM_BLOCK} += drivers/blockctrl/libblockctrl.o
> > > > > 
> > > > > ${} ? What is this ?
> > > 
> > > Why not just reuse drivers/block and in drivers/block compile in the
> > > libblock.o so you don't polute the top-level makefile ? Easy as that.
> > > 
> > > > > [..]
> > > > > 
> > > > > This handles SCSI? Sata ? what ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Should this not be called scsi_core ? sata_core ? What did the
> > > > > previous core do? sata?  scsi? block? I'm lost.
> > > > 
> > > > the previous core handled disks (and cards and stuff) and partitions
> > > > (think
> > > > /dev/sdxy), and was largely a replacement of /disk
> > > > this core handles any interface those disks are connected to (SATA,
> > > > PATA, SCSI), and should replace /drivers/block
> > > 
> > > Why is this not in the commit message then ? I have a proposal, before
> > > you submit a patchset, prepare it, work on something else for a bit,
> > > then read again the commit message only and see if you still understand
> > > what it means.
> > 
> > I actually did. the "something else" was splitting it into smaller
> > patches,
> 
> I mean something totally different, so you won't have the code in front of
> you. You DO understand the code because you wrote it, you need to work on
> the part where you explain others properly what your change does. Even if
> it mean writing essay-esque commit message.

ok, next time

> > so the original text information got distributed into the other patches.
> > if i put it all here you would surely complain about it not being there,
> > or it being duplicated
> 
> Not really ...
> 
> > > Am I correct that this will look as such:
> > > user -> [ 01/11 ] -> [ 03/11 or something else ] -> [ if 03/11, then
> > > disc
> > > ]
> > 
> > no idea what this means, sorry
> 
> Patch numbers, how the code added in them connect into each other.

ok then

user -> [7/11] -> [1/11] -> [5/11] (partition) -> [1/11] -> [5/11] (ata) -> 
[3/11] -> [4/11] (or another driver)

if you have FS on a whole disk and not just a partition, you omit the first 
[5/11] -> [1/11] bit, if your filesystem is on a card or a flash driver you 
replace the [5/11] -> [3/11] bit

Pavel Herrmann