[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/4] Patches to allow consistent mmc / mmcblk numbering w/ device tree

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 FS
> (fsuuid) and to partitions (part uuid). Linux kernel can mount FS using
> PARTUUID, to support UUID you need initramfs.

Two thoughts about that:

1. Some amount of policy is allowed in device tree. At some point in
time there was a big discussion about the need for a separate "config
tree" that was totally parallel to the device tree so we could put
policy stuff in that. Nobody wanted that and (as I recall) it was
agreed that in some cases policy could go there if that policy
expressed policy that was the generic intent of how the board ought to
be run. I believe this is how things like the assigned-clocks is

2. In some cases this number does describe the hardware. You look at
the hardware reference manual and see that there are 3 MMC
controllers: 0, 1, and 2. In such cases it seems like it's an OK
description of the hardware to encode this info into the DTS.

...from what I recall, one big objection is for SoCs that didn't just
have numbers for their controllers. AKA I think some SoCs might call
their controllers the "eMMC" controller, the "SD" controller, and the
"SDIO" controller. They may be nearly the same hardware, but perhaps
the SoC allows for a GPIO interrupt on the SDIO controller and perhaps
the eMMC controller exposes the strobe line or has an 8-bit wide
datapath. In this case making up numbers does become a bit more
arbitrary and folks didn't like it.

IIRC there was general consensus that it'd be OK to somehow specify a
string (AKA non-numeric) name for different SD controllers. I don't
have pointers to that conversation offhand and it's possible I
imagined it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-16 00:24    [W:0.079 / U:2.544 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site