Message-ID: <CAD=FV=V9V8P=d59RX1eaAdVxJgMxub1F6hzQNw1QW+7t=3POBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 29 Apr 2016 14:39:35 -0700
From:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
	Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@...sung.com>,
	Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
	Stefan Agner <stefan@...er.ch>,
	"linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...vell.com>,
	"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
	devicetree-spec@...r.kernel.org,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Venu Byravarasu <vbyravarasu@...dia.com>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Grant Grundler <grundler@...omium.org>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"Luca Porzio (lporzio)" <lporzio@...ron.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Chaotian Jing <chaotian.jing@...iatek.com>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
	zhonghui.fu@...ux.intel.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] Patches to allow consistent mmc / mmcblk numbering
 w/ device tree

Russell,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@....linux.org.uk> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists