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 partic
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,
>
>>
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 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 no
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 n
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 tim
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
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:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kerne
Hi Dirk,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Dirk,
>
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Dirk Behme 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
Hi Dirk,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Dirk Behme 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.
Thanks,
Fabio Esteva
Hi Fabio,
Am 18.09.2013 02:06, schrieb Fabio Estevam:
Hi Dirk,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 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 h
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?
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
Hi Dirk,
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 Behme wrote:
> >>>...
> If you have an embedded sy
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 U-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
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 load
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
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 loader (e.g.
> U-Boot's SPL) which doesn't kno
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
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
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
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.
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 mmc
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 ord
Hi Dirk,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:04 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?
>
> I
26 matches
Mail list logo
