On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:23:27PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 12:21 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16:35AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 09:30 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi all,
The wish to have persistent MMC block device names for passing
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:23:27PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
Does it solve the following, which AFAIK has always been the primary
argument against aligning block device IDs with controller IDs:
- User inserts SD card into MMC controller ID (or alias) 1.
- /dev/mmcblk1 now exists
-
On 05/23/2014 03:23 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
...
Speaking of which my preferred solution is another one. As a bootloader
developer it really annoys me that I don't have the possibility to tell
the kernel to boot a particular device. What I really want to do is to
pass a devicetree phandle to
On 05/23/2014 02:29 AM, Michael Olbrich wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 01:23:27PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 12:21 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16:35AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 09:30 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi all,
The wish to have
On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 10:01:53AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/23/2014 03:23 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
...
Speaking of which my preferred solution is another one. As a bootloader
developer it really annoys me that I don't have the possibility to tell
the kernel to boot a particular
On 05/22/2014 09:30 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi all,
The wish to have persistent MMC block device names for passing a suitable
root=/dev/mmcblkX option came up several times already and has been discussed
at least in these threads:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16:35AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 09:30 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi all,
The wish to have persistent MMC block device names for passing a suitable
root=/dev/mmcblkX option came up several times already and has been
discussed
at least in
On 05/22/2014 12:21 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:16:35AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 05/22/2014 09:30 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi all,
The wish to have persistent MMC block device names for passing a suitable
root=/dev/mmcblkX option came up several times already and
Hi Fabio,
Am 18.09.2013 02:06, schrieb Fabio Estevam:
Hi Dirk,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Fabio Estevam feste...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a
Hi Dirk,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Dirk Behme dirk.be...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you like to send this as a proper patch? Following the recent discussion
it sounds to me that there is really some need for something like this. Then
we could discuss the technical details.
Please do so.
Hi Dirk,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Fabio Estevam feste...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dirk,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Dirk Behme dirk.be...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you like to send this as a proper patch? Following the recent discussion
it sounds to me that there is really some need for
Hi,
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 09:42:38AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 07:23:27AM +0200, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 20.09.2013 19:03, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/20/2013 10:37 AM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 20.09.2013 18:05, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/18/2013 11:22 PM, Dirk
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 02:30:51PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
Hi,
An embedded system typically doesn't have an initrd. The kernel
boots directly into the rootfs on SD/eMMC.
To my understanding, the UUID is different for each SD card/eMMC,
correct?
Yes by default.
Stephen Warren writes:
Patches to make mmc block devices have static names have been proposed
in the past and rejected. I think the main reason is that the block
device names are (or can be) dynamic, so anything that assumes a
particular naming scheme is simply broken.
Why may network devices
On 09/20/2013 12:30 AM, Chaiken, Alison wrote:
Stephen Warren writes:
Patches to make mmc block devices have static names have been proposed
in the past and rejected. I think the main reason is that the block
device names are (or can be) dynamic, so anything that assumes a
particular naming
Am 20.09.2013 18:05, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/18/2013 11:22 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
...
If you have an embedded system were you just care a little about boot
time you don't want to do anything like U-Boot's part uuid every time
you boot. Or even worse, you just have a minimalistic boot
On 09/20/2013 10:37 AM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 20.09.2013 18:05, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/18/2013 11:22 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
...
If you have an embedded system were you just care a little about boot
time you don't want to do anything like U-Boot's part uuid every time
you boot. Or even
Am 20.09.2013 19:03, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/20/2013 10:37 AM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 20.09.2013 18:05, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/18/2013 11:22 PM, Dirk Behme wrote:
...
If you have an embedded system were you just care a little about boot
time you don't want to do anything like
On 09/17/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd board.
Do you have plans to submit it? Maybe as a RFC?
It solves the mmcblkX
On 09/18/2013 11:01 AM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 18.09.2013 17:17, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/17/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd
Am 18.09.2013 17:17, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/17/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd board.
Do you have plans to submit it? Maybe
Am 18.09.2013 19:13, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/18/2013 11:01 AM, Dirk Behme wrote:
Am 18.09.2013 17:17, schrieb Stephen Warren:
On 09/17/2013 12:04 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd board.
Do you have plans to submit it? Maybe as a RFC?
It solves the mmcblkX order issue on my tests and it would be nice we
could have
Hi Dirk,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Fabio Estevam feste...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd board.
Do you have plans to submit it? Maybe as a
Hi Fabio,
Am 17.09.2013 20:04, schrieb Fabio Estevam:
Hi Dirk,
I have adapted your patch at:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-July/111022.html
and tested it on 3.12-rc1 on a mx6qsabresd board.
Do you have plans to submit it? Maybe as a RFC?
It solves the mmcblkX
25 matches
Mail list logo
