Thanks for the response,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pantelis Antoniou [mailto:pa...@antoniou-consulting.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:25
> To: Steve Rae
> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; tr...@ti.com; albert.u.b...@aribaud.net
> Subject: Re: MMC: proposal to support multiple physical partitions
>
> Hi Steve,
>
> On Apr 24, 2014, at 8:50 PM, Steve Rae wrote:
>
[... snip ...]
> > I have two different proposals:
> > 1) overload the "int dev_num" argument with encoded "dev_num" and
> "part_num" fields
> > - the dev_num in the [15:0] bits,
> > - the part_num in the [30:16] bits,
> > - a flag to indicate this encoding in [31] bit.
> > - and modify mmc_bread() to handle this encoded argument, and
> implement the above code...
> > 2) create a wrapper function to perform the above code, with an added
> argument "int part_num", possibly named:
> > - mmc_block_dev_block_read() -- so that it is similar to the
> > original
> calling convention [mmc->block_dev.block_read], or
> > - mmc_pbread() [PartitionBlockRead] -- so that it is similar to the
> mmc_bread() [which is the implementation of the callback function]
> >
>
>
> I'd rather go with the wrapper function. Perhaps it's not even needed. The
> function called is part of the block_dev (block_read/write etc).
>
> Overwrite those with functions that implemented the switching first, and
> then call the original block* function.
>
The callback function is:
mmc->block_dev.block_read = mmc_bread
and it accepts four arguments:
include/part.h: unsigned long (*block_read)(int dev,
include/part.h- lbaint_t start,
include/part.h- lbaint_t blkcnt,
include/part.h- void *buffer);
Are you suggesting that I should add another argument to this callback?
[...snip...]
>
> Regards
>
> -- Pantelis
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
