While they will share the controller, they will not share partitions. So there is no file system level sharing. Just the controller. Also the granularity would be at the command level. We won't cut short any command in progress.
-----Original Message----- From: spy...@gmail.com [mailto:spy...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ian Molton Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 2:29 PM To: Johnson, Charles F Subject: Re: RFC: Shared eMMC Controller I cant see that being a problem. I wonder how fine grained the access would be though - having mounted filesystems would mean that the other systtem would risk getting vorrupt data and I doubt your mutexes could be that low level. As an alternative, why dont you probe / remove the driver when not used? 2009/10/13 Johnson, Charles F <charles.f.john...@intel.com>: > I'm working on a system where we have a need to share the eMMC host > controller with both the main CPU and a micro-controller. So to coodinate > access we need to define a mutex mechanism between the two. This is possible > since there is some shared non-cachable static ram that both have access to. > My question for this email list is, if we limit the mmc driver changes to use > the chipset specific quirk mechanism, would that be acceptable ?? > > As soon as we have the code, we'll post it, but I am interested in any > comments. > > Thanks. > > Charles Johnson > Intel Corp. > charles.f.john...@intel.com > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Ian Molton Linux, Automotive, and other hacking: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
