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

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 10:37:19AM -0700, Tim Harvey wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:00 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:48:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > > Stefan Agner writes: > > > > > > > On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux

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

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 10:00 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:48:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Stefan Agner writes: > > > > > On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > >> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut

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

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:48:24PM +, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Stefan Agner writes: > > > On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> If you have a FS or partition table there, it does. > >>> If you don't, I

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

Stefan Agner writes: > On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> If you have a FS or partition table there, it does. >>> If you don't, I agree ... that's a problem. >> >> eMMC boot partitions are called

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

On 3/17/19 4:43 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: >> On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: >>> On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: If you have a FS or partition table there,

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

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 04:05:14PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > >> If you have a FS or partition table there, it does. > >> If you don't, I agree ... that's a problem. > >

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

On 16.03.2019 16:39, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote: > On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: >> If you have a FS or partition table there, it does. >> If you don't, I agree ... that's a problem. > > eMMC boot partitions are called mmcblkXbootY, and unless you have

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

On Sat, Mar 16, 2019 at 01:33:58PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > If you have a FS or partition table there, it does. > If you don't, I agree ... that's a problem. eMMC boot partitions are called mmcblkXbootY, and unless you have more than one eMMC device on the system, they can be found either by

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

On 3/16/19 1:22 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Marek Vasut writes: > >> On 3/15/19 10:52 PM, Tim Harvey wrote: >>> Tim Harvey - Principal Software EngineerGateworks Corporation - >>> http://www.gateworks.com/3026 S. Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA >>> 93401805-781-2000 >>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:39

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

Hi, On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Marek Vasut wrote: > > > Completely agree here - we need a dt solution that allows us to > > specify ordering. > > Nope, ordering would be a policy and does not describe hardware, thus it > shouldn't be in the DT. Use UUID or PARTUUID, they apply both to raw

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

Tim Harvey - Principal Software EngineerGateworks Corporation - http://www.gateworks.com/3026 S. Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401805-781-2000 On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 4:00 PM Marek Vasut wrote: > > On 3/15/19 10:52 PM, Tim Harvey wrote: > > Tim Harvey - Principal Software EngineerGateworks

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

On 3/15/19 10:52 PM, Tim Harvey wrote: > Tim Harvey - Principal Software EngineerGateworks Corporation - > http://www.gateworks.com/3026 S. Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA > 93401805-781-2000 > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:39 AM Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Douglas Anderson writes: >> >>> This series

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

Tim Harvey - Principal Software EngineerGateworks Corporation - http://www.gateworks.com/3026 S. Higuera St. San Luis Obispo CA 93401805-781-2000 On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 4:39 AM Måns Rullgård wrote: > > Douglas Anderson writes: > > > This series picks patches from various different places to

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

Douglas Anderson writes: > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > ordering. > > Why consistent ordering and why not just use UUIDs? IMHO consistent > ordering solves a few different problems:

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

On Wed 2016-05-04 07:25:42, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >> > This series picks patches from various

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

On Wed 2016-05-04 07:25:42, Rob Herring wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > > On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >> > This series picks patches from various different

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: >> > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> > I consider the

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

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Pavel Machek wrote: > On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: >> > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> > I consider the best solution to

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

On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > > ordering. > > > >

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

On Fri 2016-04-29 19:12:48, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > > ordering. > > > >

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

On Sat, 2016-04-30 at 11:48 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:42:35PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > Maybe a third opinion could make this conversation constructive again. And maybe a forth. > > I think Doug's point is that using a UUID or labels for

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

On Sat, 2016-04-30 at 11:48 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:42:35PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > > Maybe a third opinion could make this conversation constructive again. And maybe a forth. > > I think Doug's point is that using a UUID or labels for

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: >> My reply would be... why should MMC have special handling that no >> other subsystem has? > > No other subsystem? >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: >> My reply would be... why should MMC have special handling that no >> other subsystem has? > > No other subsystem? > > * i2c allows numbering devices by alias > *

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:42:35PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Maybe a third opinion could make this conversation constructive again. > > I think Doug's point is that using a UUID or labels for consistency is > orthogonal to having a deterministic numbering for MMC devices. And I >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 06:42:35PM -0400, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > Maybe a third opinion could make this conversation constructive again. > > I think Doug's point is that using a UUID or labels for consistency is > orthogonal to having a deterministic numbering for MMC devices. And I >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Peter Hurley wrote: > FWIW, there is already a defacto expectation by boot configurations in the > field that a given mmc block device is stable across boots. The reality > is that 10's of kernel command lines look like: > > root=/dev/mmcblk0p2

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Peter Hurley wrote: > FWIW, there is already a defacto expectation by boot configurations in the > field that a given mmc block device is stable across boots. The reality > is that 10's of kernel command lines look like: > > root=/dev/mmcblk0p2

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 04/29/2016 05:03 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Peter Hurley >> wrote: >> >> On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> > *

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Peter Hurley wrote: > On 04/29/2016 05:03 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Peter Hurley >> wrote: >> >> On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> > * serial allows numbering devices by alias. >> >>

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

On 04/29/2016 05:03 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Peter Hurley > wrote: > > On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > * serial allows numbering devices by alias. > > Which is in fact a total nightmare. > >

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

On 04/29/2016 05:03 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Peter Hurley > wrote: > > On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > > * serial allows numbering devices by alias. > > Which is in fact a total nightmare. > > While stable device order

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

On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > * serial allows numbering devices by alias. Which is in fact a total nightmare. While stable device order is mandatory in serial because of console command line parameters and existing userspace expectations, it is the number one barrier to

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

On 04/29/2016 04:01 PM, Doug Anderson wrote: > * serial allows numbering devices by alias. Which is in fact a total nightmare. While stable device order is mandatory in serial because of console command line parameters and existing userspace expectations, it is the number one barrier to

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > My reply would be... why should MMC have special handling that no > other subsystem has? No other subsystem? * i2c allows numbering devices by alias * rtc allows numbering devices by alias. * serial

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > My reply would be... why should MMC have special handling that no > other subsystem has? No other subsystem? * i2c allows numbering devices by alias * rtc allows numbering devices by alias. * serial allows numbering devices

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:22:50PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Russell, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 03:22:50PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Russell, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > >>

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

Hello Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr

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

Hello Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 6:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > [didn't read most of your reply] > > > >> Really I just

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > > [didn't read most of your reply] > > > >> Really I just reposted it several

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > [didn't read most of your reply] > >> Really I just reposted it several times because I notice that you seem >> to ignore many

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > [didn't read most of your reply] > >> Really I just reposted it several times because I notice that you seem >> to ignore many points of my emails. I was

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: [didn't read most of your reply] > 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.

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: [didn't read most of your reply] > 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.

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux 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 >

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux 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

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:17:45PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Russell, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:17:45PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > >> Russell, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > >>

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> >> * Presumably on a PC

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> >> * Presumably on a PC you've got an extra bit in the middle (like

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> * Presumably on a PC you've got an extra bit in the middle (like grub > >> or something like that) that can help you

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 01:04:48PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > >> * Presumably on a PC you've got an extra bit in the middle (like grub > >> or something like that) that can help you resolve your UUIDs even if >

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> * Presumably on a PC you've got an extra bit in the middle (like grub >> or something like that) that can help you resolve your UUIDs even if >> you get your kernel from somewhere else. > > You

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:57 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> * Presumably on a PC you've got an extra bit in the middle (like grub >> or something like that) that can help you resolve your UUIDs even if >> you get your kernel from somewhere else. > > You are over-estimating what

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Your original two arguments don't really stand up. > > Let's take #2 to start with. > > You claim that coreboot doesn't have support to provide the correct UUID. > Why is that a problem? Distros on

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

Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > Your original two arguments don't really stand up. > > Let's take #2 to start with. > > You claim that coreboot doesn't have support to provide the correct UUID. > Why is that a problem? Distros on x86 don't have support to

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:43:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >> This series picks patches from various different

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:43:39PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Russell, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Rob, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson > > wrote: > >> This series picks patches from various different

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Rob, > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson > > wrote: > >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > >> I consider the best

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> I consider the best solution to getting consistent

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

Russell, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk >>

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

Rob, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson > wrote: >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc

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

Rob, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Rob Herring wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson > wrote: >> This series picks patches from various different places to produce what >> I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk >> ordering. >> >> Why

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > ordering. > > Why consistent ordering and why not just use UUIDs? IMHO consistent >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:32:15AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote: > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > ordering. > > Why consistent ordering and why not just use UUIDs? IMHO consistent >

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > ordering. > > Why consistent ordering and why not just use UUIDs? IMHO

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

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > This series picks patches from various different places to produce what > I consider the best solution to getting consistent mmc and mmcblk > ordering. > > Why consistent ordering and why not just use UUIDs? IMHO consistent > ordering