Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752886AbcD2Vjj (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:39:39 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f171.google.com ([209.85.161.171]:34718 "EHLO mail-yw0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752111AbcD2Vjg (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:39:36 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160429212920.GA19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1461951139-6109-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> <20160429181248.GW19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429195741.GY19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429211328.GZ19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429212920.GA19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:39:35 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: iNWT57twYY4pHG93C0Sa5tnSN7Y Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Patches to allow consistent mmc / mmcblk numbering w/ device tree From: Doug Anderson To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Ulf Hansson , Jaehoon Chung , Shawn Lin , Adrian Hunter , Stefan Agner , "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Brian Norris , Dmitry Torokhov , Heiko Stuebner , Jisheng Zhang , "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." , devicetree-spec@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Venu Byravarasu , Lars-Peter Clausen , Jon Hunter , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Pawel Moll , Ian Campbell , Grant Grundler , Kumar Gala , "Luca Porzio (lporzio)" , Rob Herring , Chaotian Jing , Sergei Shtylyov , Sudeep Holla , zhonghui.fu@linux.intel.com, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 60 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 certainly considered it. > I think the "problem" here is that you've got used to coreboot > doing something that very few other boot loaders do, namely it > automatically extracting a rootfs UUID for you. The rest of the > world doesn't have that luxury. Earlier in this thread Rob nicely proposed a solution to my TFTP. I agreed that was a nice solution. I can certainly use it. Certainly there are many places where UUIDs are awesome. ...but that's still no reason to assign a random number when a sane and logical numbering system exists for MMC parts on a given SoC. > So, instead, you want to stuff more code into the kernel to work > around what you think is a problem - a problem which seems to be > unique to yourself. Not so much. I think many people have expressed interest in something like this. It seems unlikely to be unique. > The UUID and label solutions were created by x86 people to work > around exactly this dynamic device problem, and as my previous > replies have shown, it is superior to fixing the device assignment > as you're trying to do. Sure. They don't have the luxury of having a simple and consistent numbering so they're forced to use UUIDs for booting and have the extra mental work of mapping IDs to physical hardware. ...so they're forced to use UUIDs. > However, I don't expect that you'll like this answer, and you'll > probably just re-post your same question after each and every > paragraph rather than considering whether the already existing > solutions could solve your "problem". So I'm just wasting my time. 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. Either you are just trying to annoy me, or you don't have an answer to how my patch series hurts you. > This is my last reply. Excellent. I look forward to your silence. -Doug