Re: mmc core broken dependency on CONFIG_BLOCK (Was: linux-next: Treefor Oct 11 (mmc))

[NamJae Jeon]

2011/10/12 Andrei Warkentin <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "NamJae Jeon" <linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Randy Dunlap" <rdunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Andrei Warkentin" <awarkentin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-next@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "LKML" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Chris Ball"
>> <cjb@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Stephen Rothwell" <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 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.
>
> A
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/