From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751120Ab3HSQFc (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:05:32 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:34938 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860Ab3HSQFb (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 12:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <52124248.3040802@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:05:28 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caizhiyong CC: Andrew Morton , Karel Zak , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Wanglin (Albert)" , Quyaxin Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: support embedded device command line partition References: <520CF92A.90909@wwwdotorg.org> <520E4D1F.3000509@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/19/2013 02:36 AM, Caizhiyong wrote: >> On 08/15/2013 08:54 PM, Caizhiyong wrote: >>>>> +blkdevparts=[;] >>>>> + := :[,] >>>>> + := [@](part-name) >>>>> + >>>>> + >>>>> + block device disk name, embedded device used fixed block device, >>>>> + it's disk name also fixed. such as: mmcblk0, mmcblk1, mmcblk0boot0. >>>> >>>> The device-name isn't always fixed. >>>> >>>> For example, what if there are multiple SDHCI controllers, one hosting a >>>> fixed eMMC device and the other an SD card? It's quite typical for the >>>> eMMC's device name (which is likely what should be affected by this >>>> feature) to be mmcblk0 when no SD card is present, yet be mmcblk1 when >>>> an SD card is present. Is there a more precise/stable way to define >>>> which device the command-line option applies to? >>> >>> Yes. Fixed is for single controller. >>> For multiple controllers, currently, there is not a simple way. >>> I tend to do something in the eMMC driver, such as initialize order, >>> but I have not tried. >> >> There have been proposals before to try and create a fixed naming for >> the controllers (or rather the block devices they generate...) but >> they've been rejected. I don't think we should rely on being able to do >> that. >> >>>>> + >>>>> + >>>>> + partition start address, in bytes. >>>>> + >>>>> +(part-name) >>>>> + partition name, kernel send uevent with "PARTNAME". application can create >>>>> + a link to block device partition with the name "PARTNAME". >>>>> + user space application can access partition by partition name. >>>> >>>> Do partitions usually have a PARTNAME attribute when probed through >>>> normal mechanisms like MBR? If so, I guess this is fine. >>>> >>>> Perhaps we can just use , as the delimiter for all fields, rather than >>>> special-casing part-name to use (), so: >>>> >>>> size,offset,partname,size,offset,partname,... >>>> >>>> The partname field could easily be empty if not needed. >>> >>> If no need partname, your bootargs are mmcblk0:1G,1G,1G,... >> >> Well, you always need the offset too. I don't think there's any harm in >> forcing all fields to be specified in all cases; it makes the whole >> system much more regular and less error-prone. >> >> Alternatively, use a different separator between fields for a given >> partition, and between partitions, e.g.: >> >> size,offset,partname;size,offset,partname >> >> That way, you know that if you see a ; you're looking at a new >> partition, and hence the partname field need not always be specified. >> Although, if you want to specify a partname but not an offset you'd >> still need empty fields, so just requiring all fields to always be >> present still seems safest to me. > > I just follow MTD cmdline partition format.(reference drivers/mtd/cmdlinepart.c) Ah OK, consistency with an existing format used for similar purposes probably does override any other concerns. > There are many pitfalls in using this partition format, the designer is more > consideration its ease of use, rather than safe. > There is an other conversation: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/3/16