Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752735AbcD2WW4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:56 -0400 Received: from mail-yw0-f179.google.com ([209.85.161.179]:35536 "EHLO mail-yw0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752615AbcD2WWv (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:22:51 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160429221606.GE19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <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> <20160429215017.GC19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160429221606.GE19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 15:22:50 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: sYyZO5bYbDVlcKOFH9NWPcJIrpw 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: 2330 Lines: 52 Hi, On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 3:16 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:56:38PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> Russell, >> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux >> wrote: >> > On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 02:39:35PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: >> > [didn't read most of your reply] >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > I don't see you treating Rob with the same contempt that you have >> > treated me in this thread, despite Rob and myself both telling you >> > basically the same thing. >> >> Rob wrote a nice thoughtful reply and I tried to give a nice >> thoughtful reply back to him. He raised some good points and I raised >> some good points back to him. I look forward to his future thoughts >> on the topic. > > Meanwhile, I've pointed out that you appear to be coming from a > misunderstanding (that's certainly clear because you believed > initially that grub did something it doesn't), showing that the > "problem" you have is no different from the majority of other > systems running Linux, and you treat me with contempt. > > What are you going to do to resolve this? As I tried to indicate in earlier emails, I don't actually care how grub works in this case. It was originally meant to illustrate the other people's workflows and mine are not the same. If they have a solution that works for them, that's great. I want my MMC and MMCBLK device numbers to be sane and consistent to help me parse through dmesg and sysfs. If it happens to also make it easy / possible to specify a root filesystem using "mmcblkN" that's great and I'll probably take advantage of that. I'm very sorry if those using SATA and ATA disks don't have a way to get sane and consistent device number ordering. I really am. ...but just because they don't have a well defined ordering doesn't mean those of us using MMC should have to suffer. ...and I don't think giving a sane ordering to MMC devices hurts anyone, does it? -Doug