linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] mmc: block: Use the mmc host device index as the mmcblk device index

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <570EF189.7030305@samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:25:29 +0900
From:	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>
To:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Cc:	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Laszlo Fiat <laszlo.fiat@...il.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"# 4.0+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mmc: block: Use the mmc host device index as the mmcblk
 device index

Hi Ulf,

Sorry for replying late.

On 04/07/2016 10:07 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On 7 April 2016 at 14:07, Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com> wrote:
>> On 04/07/2016 04:57 PM, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> Commit 520bd7a8b415 ("mmc: core: Optimize boot time by detecting cards
>>> simultaneously") causes regressions for some platforms.
>>>
>>> These platforms relies on fixed mmcblk device indexes, instead of
>>> deploying the defacto standard with UUID/PARTUUID. In other words their
>>> rootfs needs to be available at hardcoded paths, like /dev/mmcblk0p2.
>>>
>>> Such guarantees have never been made by the kernel, but clearly the above
>>> commit changes the behaviour. More precisely, because of that the order
>>> changes of how cards becomes detected, so do their corresponding mmcblk
>>> device indexes.
>>>
>>> As the above commit significantly improves boot time for some platforms
>>> (magnitude of seconds), let's avoid reverting this change but instead
>>> restore the behaviour of how mmcblk device indexes becomes picked.
>>>
>>> By using the same index for the mmcblk device as for the corresponding mmc
>>> host device, the probe order of mmc host devices decides the index we get
>>> for the mmcblk device.
>>>
>>> For those platforms that suffers from a regression, one could expect that
>>> this updated behaviour should be sufficient to meet their expectations of
>>> "fixed" mmcblk device indexes.
>>>
>>> Another side effect from this change, is that the same index is used for
>>> the mmc host device, the mmcblk device and the mmc block queue. That
>>> should clarify their relationship.
>>
>> I have tested with this patch..but there also are side-effects.
>> Exynos4 series has the two host controller..one is sdhci, one is dwmmc for eMMC.
>> In this case, dwmmc controller is probed after sdhci controller.
>>
>> Then eMMC is always assigned to mmcblk1.
> 
> Okay, let me follow up with some questions.
> 
> 1)
> What is the sdhci controller used for?

Some of Exynos4 series have two MMC host controller. 
As i mentioned, one is sdhci, other is dwmmc.

sdhci controller can be used for eMMC/SD/SDIO. (emmc, T-flash, WiFi)
And dwmmc controller can be only used for eMMC.

It can choose which controller user uses.
In normal, i recommend the dwmmc controller is used for eMMC.
(There are some reason..I/O performance, and functionality.)

> 
> 2)
> Are you seeing regressions for Exynos for this? I was under the
> assumption that your vendor trees contained patches to deal with fixed
> mmcblk ids?

Actually not...but i need to check more..in vendor tress.

> 
> 3)
> You proposed [1] recently to use aliases in DT to support fixed mmcblk
> ids. I do realize that as UUID/PARTUUID sometimes can be a bit
> cumbersome to use for an embedded system. Using aliases via DT seems
> like a very good option. To implement that on top of $subject patch
> should be quite easy to fix (I am happy to help with it). Would that
> address your concerns?

I saw this patch was applied in your repository..So i will test with your tree.
In normal case, i think it's not problem...but i remembered there is a rare case about removable case.
I will try to test with all cases..:)

Best Regards,
Jaehoon Chung

> 
>>
>> I think it's not good that make another problem for solving something.
>> It needs more discussion for this..
> 
> Thanks for testing and your comments!
> 
> Kind regards
> Uffe
> 
> [1]
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg35980.html
> 
>