On Wed 2014-08-27 12:11:55, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/26/2014 07:19 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> >>>> Would you elaborate?
> >>>>
> >>>> If I have a device like a phone, I may want to put one "slot" inside
> >>>> phone for basic system, and offer second slot for user expansion
> >>>> (initially empty).
> >>>
> >>> if multiple slot is supported, then a mmcqd should be processing for
> >>> multiple slots.
> >>> It's too inefficient, and affect the whole performance reduction.
> >> Sorry, Discard this comment. it means dwmci, not mmcqd.
> >
> > Well, that's a Linux problem, and for many applications, not even
> > problem at all.
> >
> > Device tree should describe hardware, and hardware can do multiple
> > slots per controller, so device tree should describe multiple slots
> > per controller.
> >
> > Now, the configuration may be uncommon, but you are moving from good
> > hardware description to bad hardware description.
>
> Well, i don't think it's bad hardware description. And this policy is
> suggested by other mmc developers and maintainers.
> At first time, I had also suggested same opinion with yours.
> Refer to below..
Well, I disagree with them. They want to modify device tree because of
linux limitations.
Plus. I guess that sooner or later someone will wire just the slot 1
(not 0) and not match this description.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures)
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
